SHREE RATNAKAR ENTERPRISE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI 1. By way of this appeal, the original appellant has challenged the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

(2.) FACTS in brief, are that the appellant intended to obtain 1500 acres of land of survey No. 141 of village: Mundra, Taluka ­ Mundra for producing salt. The request in writing was made to the Collector, who under his cryptic order dated 5.6.1993 rejected the same on account of non -availability of the land capable of being granted. This order was assailed before the higher authority, who was of the view that the order passed by the Collector was not reflecting the exercise of mind and hence the matter was remanded vide order dated 31.1.1996. After the matter was remanded, appellant requested the concerned District Land Record Officer for carrying out measurement and requisite fees were also paid. This happened in the year 1997. Thereafter, nothing was heard as per the say of the appellant and the appellant, therefore, was constrained to approach the Special Secretary once again, who in turn issued direction to the District Collector vide its communication dated 15.7.2002 and the appellant received communication thereafter indicating that the order had been passed on 18.12.1999 rejecting the application. This application was thus rejected and hence this order was sought to be challenged by way of Revision Application being Revision Application No. 9 of 2005, whereunder, the Revisional Authority did not accept the say of the appellant and rejected the Revision Application confirming the order of the Collector dated 18.12.1999 for the reasons stated therein. Against the said order the present appellant preferred a petition before the learned Single judge. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment rejected the said petition. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering the evidence on record has passed the impugned order. He therefore, submitted that no interference is called for by this Court.