MANUBHAI K PATEL Vs. THAKOR ANARJI RAVAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for converting the land for non-agricultural purpose under Section 65 of Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") for the land bearing Survey No.1990/102, No.1990/105 of T.P. Scheme No.1 of Final Plot No.51, admeasuring the total area of about 8799 sq. mtrs. It appears that the petitioner simultaneously applied for development permission to the Town Planning Authority and as the land was situated within the residential zone, the permission was granted by Town Planning Authority for development of the land. The aforesaid permission came to be granted on 18.1.1988. The procedure for obtaining NOC from the concerned authority was followed. However, so far as Mehsana Municipality is concerned, it had objected on the ground that the over the Plot No.124 there are constructions of hutments. The petitioner herein by submitting the application on 10.6.1988 declared before the Collector for excluding the area which is under the occupation of the hutmen for the permission under Section 65 of the Code/Act. It appears that the Collector ultimately passed the order on 2.8.1988, whereby permission for the land admeasuring 6841 sq. mtrs. was granted, excluding the area under the occupation of the hutmen.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 who is one of the hutmen preferred revision before the State Government being Revision Application No.5/1988 against the order of the Collector for granting permission for non-agricultural purpose and in the said revision, the State Government ultimately after hearing both the sides found that when the portion of the land was used by hutmen for residential purpose, it was in breach of the condition of agricultural purpose and it was required for the Collector to take action for imposing of penalty and to recover the same and thereafter if the payment of the penalty is made, it could have been considered by the Collector for considering the matter for non-agricultural purpose and, therefore, the State Government in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction set aside the order dated 2.8.1988 passed by the District Collector and further directed the District Collector to take action for unauthorised used of the land other than agricultural purpose and to complete the process within a period of three months. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition.

(3.) Heard Mr.Raval, learned Counsel appearing with Mr.Yadav for the petitioner, Mr.Jani, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms.D.S.Pandit, learned AGP for respondents No.2 and 3.