MANUBHAI BHIKHABHAI VALAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the City Deputy Collector at Ahmedabad on 21 st April 1995, under Sec. 79-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief) in Breach of Condition/Remand Case No. 21 of 1994 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Collector of Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 27th February 1996 in LB/Appeal No. 47 of 1995 as further affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 1 herein) on 8th July, 1996 in Revision Application No. 5 of 1996 is under challenge in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the City Deputy Collector at Ahmedabad ordered eviction of the petitioners from one parcel of land bearing survey No. 778 admeasuring 4 acres 23 gunthas situated at village Naroda taluka City district Ahmedabad (Rural) (the disputed land for convenience).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land was granted to the petitioners on 2nd May 1986, on a new and impartible tenure. It appears that construction of houses in the name of Jogeshwari Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. sprang up thereon obviously without any permission whatsoever from any corner or quarter. This fact appears to have come to the notice of the City Deputy Collector at Ahmedabad. He thereupon issued one show cause notice on 3rd March 1988, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why an action for breach of the conditions of grant should not be taken against them. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The proceeding arising therefrom was registered as Breach of Condition Case No. 2 of 1988. It culminated into an order of eviction of the petitioners and resumption of the land by the Government by the order passed on 12th September 1988, by the City Deputy Collector at Ahmedabad. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that the aforesaid order was affirmed by the City Assistant Collector at Ahmedabad by his order passed on 6th February 1990. It was further affirmed in appeal by the order passed by respondent No. 2 in appeal bearing No. LB/Appeal No. 60 of 1991. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. It was further affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government on 1st June 1993, and communicated on 3rd June 1993. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. The orders at Annexures-C, D and E to this petition came to be set aside by the decision rendered by this court on 3rd October 1994 in Special Civil Application No. 1348 of 1993 and the matter was remanded to the City Deputy Collector to proceed according to law after serving to the petitioners a fresh show cause notice. It's copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. Thereupon, the proceeding came to be registered as Breach of Condition/Remand Case No. 21 of 1994. A show cause notice came to be issued by the City Deputy Collector on 29th December 1994, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why an action under Sec. 79-A of the Code should not be taken for breach of condition of grant. It's copy is at Annexure-G to this petition. The petitioners filed their reply thereto on 10th April 1995. It's copy is at Annexure-H to this petition. Thereafter, by the order passed on 21st April 1995 in the aforesaid proceeding, the City Deputy Collector at Ahmedabad ordered eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land and it's resumption by the State Government. Its copy is at Annexure-I to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the mater in appeal before respondent No. 2 under Sec. 203 of the Code. It came to be registered at LB/Apeal No. 47 of 1995. By his order passed on 27th February 1996 in the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 2 dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-J to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 1 under Sec. 211 of the Code. A copy of the memo of revision is at Annexure-K to this petition. It appears that the authority exercising powers of respondent No. 1 under Sec. 211 of the Code directed the petitioners to implead the occupants of the houses raised on the disputed land as parties pending consideration of the revisional application. Thereupon, the learned Advocate for the petitioner before respondent No. 1 expressed his inability to implead those persons as parties to the proceeding mainly on the ground that they were not parties before the City Deputy Collector or before respondent No. 2 in appeal. Thereupon, by the order passed on 8th July 1996, by and on behalf of respondent No. 1, the aforesaid revisional application of the petitioners came to be rejected. It's copy is below the memo of revision at Annexure-K to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this court by means of this petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-I to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Anneuxre-J to this petition as further affirmed in revision by the order passed below the memo of revisional application at Annexure-K to this petition.

(3.) A bare perusal of the order passed below the memo of revisional application at Annexure-K to this petition would leave no room for doubt that it's author does not know even the elementary principles of law. It passes comprehension as to what prompted him to direct the petitioners to implead the persons in occupation of the houses raised on the disputed land as parties to the revisional proceeding when they were not served with any show cause notice by the City Deputy Collector nor were they parties before respondent No. 2 in appeal culminating into the order at Anenxure-J to this petition. It further passes comprehension as to how the author of the order below the memo of revisional application at Annexure-K to this petition rejected the revisional application of the petitioners on the ground that those persons were not joined as parties, even after the endorsement made by their learned Advocate regarding his inability to implead those persons as parties mainly on the ground that they were not parties before the City Deputy Collector and before respondent No. 2.