RAMANLAL LALJIBHAI THAKKER Vs. COLLECTOR, GANDHINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that an allotment of plot was made for commercial use in favour of one Ambalal Sankalchand Modi, a partner of M/s.Ambalal Sankalchand Modi, with certain conditions. The terms and conditions to which the said Ambalal Modi agreed and consented are in the document dated 7th June, 1973 (Annexure-A). Certain conditions were that the person, in whose favour the plot has been allotted, shall make minimum construction, as required under the law, and without change of the user, such person desirous of transfer, could make a transfer. Said Ambalal started construction, but, before he could conclude the construction or obtain Completion/Occupancy Certificate, he died on 1st March, 1976. The construction remained unfinished, but, after some time, the successors/legal representatives of the said Ambalal transferred the said plot in favour of the present petitioner Ramanlal Laljibhai Thakker. It appears that after learning about the transfer of the plot and breach of the conditions, the Collector, Gandhinagar issued a notice to the successors of Ambalal to show cause as to why the allotment of plot be not cancelled. Smt.Dahiben, widow of Ambalal Modi, and Rajnikant, son of the said Ambalal Modi, submitted their replies to the notice. They submitted that the construction remained incomplete because of the death of Ambalal and under the compelling circumstances, they were required to transfer the construction along with the plot on 9th October, 1978. They also pleaded that they had no knowledge of the terms of allotment or the covenants to which Ambalal had agreed. They submitted that if there was any illegal construction, they were ready and willing to dismantle/demolish the same. The Collector, after taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and effect of Conditions Nos.2, 3, 5 and 7, observed that the transfer made by the successors of Ambalal Modi was contrary to the terms of allotment. He, accordingly, cancelled the allotment.

(2.) According to the petitioner (the subsequent purchaser) he was served with a copy of the order passed by the Collector and immediately thereafter, he made a representation to the Collector, but, the Collector required him to make a representation/file an appeal to the competent authority.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner, accordingly, filed an appeal, it was heard and decided by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes/Appeals), who, by his order dated 30th April, 1984, confirmed the order passed by the Collector and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector and the Secretary, the petitioner is before this Court.