AYESHABEGAM SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the respondent No.4 in Revision Application No. 77 of 2006, whereby the respondent No.4 has dismissed the said revision application filed by the petitioners under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue Act').

(2.) The short facts are that Major K.S. Mohammad Ali, husband of the petitioner No.1, and father of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, was serving in the Indian Army. The respondent No.1 had granted him the land bearing Survey No. 653 paiki, ad-measuring 10 acres at Village Rahij, Taluka Mangrol, District Junagadh on lease for 30 years for growing fruit trees as per the order dated 30.06.1965. According to the petitioners, the land being situated in coastal area, the same had become saline, and therefore, fruit trees raised by the petitioners got destroyed gradually. The petitioners, therefore, had made an application for converting the said land into old tenure. The respondent No.1 however fixed the price at Rs. 10,000/- for the said land, and granted it to the petitioners as per the order dated 23.05.1978 as new tenure land subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter, the petitioners kept on making representations to the respondent No.1 for converting the land into old tenure, however, their representations were rejected. The respondent No.2, thereafter, issued the notice on 15.10.2006 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the land in question should not be confiscated under Section 79-A of the Revenue Code for committing breach of conditions mentioned in the order dated 23.05.1978.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned advocate Ms. Vyas for the petitioners that since the land had developed salinity, the petitioners could not grow fruit trees thereon, and therefore, the petitioners time and again made representations for converting the said land from new tenure to old tenure as per the policy and the circulars issued by the Government from time to time, however, the respondents had not considered the same. According to her, the respondent No. 2 - Collector could not have issued the show-cause notice after so many years, and without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, he had passed the order under Section 79- A of the Revenue Act, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice. She also submitted that the respondent No.4 without application of mind and without considering the submissions of the petitioners, had passed the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside.