KARIMBHAI KALUBHAI BELIM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the District Development Officer at Vadodara (respondent No. 2 herein) on 29th November 1986 as also on 1st December 1986 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State of Gujarat (respondent No. 1 herein) on 19th June 1987 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order of 29th November 1986, respondent No. 2 rejected the application for regularisation of construction and by his order of 1st Decembr 1986, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners not to proceed with any construction activity on the land involved in this petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The dispute centres round one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 374/2A admeasuring 1,387 square metres situated at Tarsali in District Vadodara ('the disputed land' for convenience). The petitioners were permitted to retain it in the inquiry under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It appears that they obtained the development permission from the Baroda Urban Development Authority by one order passed on 19th April 1986. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. The development permission was granted under Sec. 29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ('the Act' for brief) on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. It appears that the petitioners applied for what is popularly known as the N. A. permission with respect to the disputed land under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 ('the Code' for brief). It is the case of the petitioners that no reply thereto was received within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of such application. Thereupon a reminder was issued to respondent No. 2 on 3rd September 1986 in that regard. Its copy is at Annexure F to this petition. In reply, respondent No. 2 by his communication of 24/26th September 1986, informed the petitioners that the intimation regarding the order of rejection of the application for N.A. permission passed on 14th August 1986 was given by registered post and it was received back with the endorsement "not claimed". Its copy is at Annexure G to his petition. The petitioners gave their reply thereto on 7th October 1986 and contested the case set up in the communication at Annexure G to this petition. A copy of the aforesaid reply is at Annexure H to this petition. It appears that thereafter, by his order passed on 29th November 1986, the application made by the petitioners on 4th September 1980 came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 herein. Its copy is at Annexure I to this petition. Thereafter, by his order passed on 1st December 1986, an interim direction was issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners against any construction activity in the disputed land. Its copy is at Annexure J to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 1. By the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 19th June 1987, the aforesaid revisional application came to be rejected. Its copy is at Annexure K to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the orders at Annexures I, J and K to this petition.

(3.) As pointed out hereinabove, the petitioners have obtained the development permission under Sec. 29 of the Act at Annexure B to this petition. By virtue of Sec. 117 thereof, the petitioners were not required to obtain any other permission under any other law after having obtained the development permission under Sec. 29 thereof. In its rulings in Special Civil Application No. 6024 of 1990 decided on 28th February 1992, in Special Civil Application No. 9977 of 1993 decided on 5th October 1994 (reported in 1995 G.R.T.L.R. 115) and in Special Civil Application No. 10005 of 1994 decided on 5th October 1994, this Court has in terms held that no permission under any other law including that under Sec. 65 of the Code would be necessary if the development permission is obtained under Sec. 29 of the Act with respect to some land or lands. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the respondents cannot be sustained in law.