RAMESHBHAI BHUPATSINH PARMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 13.2.1995 passed by the respondent No.1 Collector, Rajkot, whereby the respondent No.1 has set aside the order dated 14.3.1990 and the order dated 23.3.1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, granting non-agricultural use permission in respect of the subject land.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, one Dharamshi Nanji Shiyani was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.338, which was given Final Plot Nos.208, 209 and 210. The said Dharamshi Nanji Shiyani had filled in the Form-A under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act"). The said Form having been processed, the competent authority under the ULC Act, vide the order dated 8.11.1989 had declared the land admeasuring 801 sq. mtr., from Final Plot No.208 as surplus vacant land. The said Dharamshi Nanji Shiyani having applied for N.A. Permission, the same was granted by the Deputy Collector vide the order dated 14.3.1990 (Annexure-D), which order was modified by the order dated 23.3.1990 (Annexure- E). It is further case of the petitioner that the said erstwhile owner Dharamshi Nanji Shiyani had divided the said Final Plot No.208 into 21 sub-plots and the said sub-plots were also sold out with the permission of the competent authority as per the order dated 26.4.1990 (Annexure-B). The petitioner had purchased one of the said sub-plots i.e. sub-plot No.21, which was forming part of the Final Plot No.208, from the said Dharamshi Nanji Shiyani by executing a sale deed on 26.6.1990. It appears that thereafter the Collector, vide the order dated 13.2.1995 cancelled the N.A. Permission granted by the Deputy Collector, vide the order dated 14.3.1990 as amended vide the order 23.3.1990. According to the petitioner, the Collector had not issued any notice to him before passing the impugned order, and he came to know about the said order only when the petitioner approached the office of the respondent No.2, City Survey Superintendent in the year 1999 to inquire as to why his name was not entered in the property card. At that time, he came to know that the Collector in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 211 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") had passed the impugned order. He, therefore, filed the present petition.

(3.) The petition is resisted by the respondents by filing reply contending, inter alia, that the original owner Dharamshi Nanji Shiyani had obtained N.A. Permission suppressing the material fact that the land admeasuring 801 sq. mtr., out of Final Plot No.208 was declared surplus vacant land. It is further contended that the said original owner Dharamshi Nanji Shiyani having not challenged the impugned order passed by the Collector, the petitioner could not file the present petition.