RAJPUT HIRAJI KULUBHAI PARMAR Vs. COLLECTOR RAJKOT DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 16.8.1983 passed by the second respondent affirming the order dated 1.6 passed by the first respondent

(2.) The petitioner was granted land admeasuring 100 sq. yds. in Survey No. 111 of village Machapar on lease for running a Paratha House on the road side By the impugned order the lease granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has committed breach of the condition of the lease by raising pakka construction over the land in dispute In the first instance the Collector had passed order dated 22 9.1981 directing the removal of the encroachment alleged to have been made by the petitioner and taking over the possession of the land in dispute from the petitioner since the petitioner has committed breach of the terms of the lease by raising pakka construction. On revision before the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Dept. Govt. of Gujarat the aforesaid order was set aside on 8.2 with a direction that the Collector may consider the question of renewal of lease if it is not possible to give 100 sd. yds. of land to the petitioner on permanent basis The Collector was further directed to hear the petitioner and that if the petitioner has committed breach of the Ribbon Development Rules Collector may take appropriate actions under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Thereafter the Collector issued Show-cause Notice to the petitioner and after hearing him passed the order dated 1.6.1983 at Annexure E holding that the petitioner had violated the Ribbon Development Rules and has constructed unautherised permanent structure contrary to the terms of lease He refused to renew the clear and passed orders to remove the said construction. On further revision the Special Secretary Revenue Department by his order dated 16.8.1983 at Annexure F affirmed the order passed by the Collector at Annex. C to this petition

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner having perused written reply filed on behalf of the State I am of the opinion that no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be made in the present case It is not in dispute that according to the terms of lease the petitioner was not entitled to raise pakka construction In his petition the petitioner has averred that construction raised by him is not pakka construction but falls in the category of kachcha construction. Whether the construction raised by the petitioner is a kachcha or a pakka construction is a finding of fact which has been arrived at by the appropriate authority after hearing the petitioner. No error or jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of record in arriving at this finding has been made out so as to warrant issuance of a writ of certiorari. The petition has therefore no force and is loosely dismissed