ISHWARBHAI VARVABHAI RABARI Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred laying challenge to the order dated 1st April 2013, passed by respondent No.1, whereby the land in question has been allotted to respondent No.3.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, according to the petitioner, land admeasuring 100 Sq. yards located at survey No. 423/A, was allotted to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 by an order dated 31st March 1995. Since then, the petitioner is in possession of the said land and is carrying on miscellaneous activities such as keeping cattle on the said land. It is further the case of the petitioner that a revenue entry showing the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question has been entered in village Form No.2, wherein, it is categorically stated that Plot No.11 of Survey No. 423/A has been allotted, on a permanent basis, to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that recently, officers from the office of the respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer, along with Engineers, Surveyors and Police personnel came to the land of the petitioner, with a view to taking possession of the same. The petitioner made enquiries and was informed that respondent no.1 District Development Officer, vide his order dated 1st April 2013, has allotted a plot of land admeasuring 60 ft X 35 ft + 2100 Sq. ft=195 Sq. Mtr. to respondent no.3, in Survey No. 423/A. In short, the same land allotted to the petitioner has now been allotted to respondent no.3. Aggrieved by the said action of respondents Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) MR . Niral Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the land in question was already allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 1995 and the petitioner is in possession thereof. No order of cancellation of the allotment has been passed by either respondent Nos.1 or 2. Therefore, the allotment in favour of the petitioner still subsists. That during the subsistence of the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner, the same land could not have been allotted to respondent No.3. The petitioner was neither informed of this development, nor was he granted any opportunity of hearing before such an action came to be taken by respondent nos .1 and 2. The impugned action of the said respondents, which has been taken behind the back of the petitioner, is violative of the principles of natural justice and amounts to deprivation of the land of the petitioner without cancelling the allotment made in his favour or granting an opportunity of hearing.