KALOL NAGARPALIKA Vs. PIR BHADIYADRI BHAGOL KALOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The attitude of "Heads I win; tails you lose" deserves to condemned even if it is shown by a private individual. This petition demonstrates how a local authority has adopted such an attitude. To top it all, that local authority has an audacity to approach this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the just and proper order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) (respondent No. 4 herein) on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 3 herein) on 12th December 1983.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner is the Municipality at Kalol. It was in occupation and possession of one parcel of land bearing survey No. 499 admeasuring 6 acres 26 gunthas. Some 399.7 square yards of its 673 land was contiguous to one parcel of land bearing survey No. 500. The petitioner wanted it to be amalgamated with survey No. 500. It also wanted to amalgamate their land in Block Nos. 274 and 275 of survey No. 505. The land sough to be amalgamated from survey No. 500 in survey No. 499 belonged to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It was therefore agreed that exchange may be made with the land belonging to the petitioner and that belonging to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Thereupon, by his order passed on 22nd August 1965, the Collector of Mehsana granted permission of such exchange on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that pursuant to that order the petitioner took possession of the land came to it under the order at Annexure A to this petition. It however did not hand over to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the possession of the land to be given in exchange. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 thereupon approached the Collector of Mehsana with a grievance that the petitioner herein did not comply with the order at Annexure-A to this petition. By his order passed on 6th September 1983, the Collector of Mehsana rejected the application made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 13th September 1982. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. That aggrieved respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein. They carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 4 acting on behalf of respondent No. 3 under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief). By his order passed on 12th December 1983 on behalf of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 4 accepted the revisional application made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein and directed the petitioner herein to hand over possession of 399.7 square yards of land from survey No. 499 to them in terms of the order at Annexure-A to this petition. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. Strangely enough, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order at Annexure-C to this petition. It has therefore approached this Court by means of this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.

(3.) At one stage the petitioner-Municipality put forward a case that possession of the land in terms of the order at Annexure-A to this petition was handed over to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The stand of the petitioner-Municipality is very much evident from the order of the Collector of Mehsana at Annexure-B to this petition. It however transpires from the revisional order at Annexure-C to this petition that, in response to one communication of 22nd September 1982 from the Collector of Mehsana, the petitioner-Municipality, by its communication of 22nd October 1982, clarified that, after the possession of the land in terms of the order at Annexure-A to this petition was received from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, the said land was reserved by the petitioner-Municipality to be handed over to the Government for the office of the Industries Inspector and as such the petitioner did not hand over possession of the required land to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the order at Annexure-A to this petition. It thus becomes clear that the stand taken by the petitioner-Municipality before the Collector of Mehsana as transpiring from the order at Annexure-B to this petition was certainly not only false but highly improper. It could not have taken such stand before the Collector of Mehsana. It is strange and surprising that the Collector of Mehsana recorded such stand of the petitioner-Municipality before him in the wake of the communication of 22nd October 1982 received by him from the petitioner-Municipality in response to his communication of 22nd September 1982. I think the Collector of Mehsana could not have lost sight of this aspect of the case while disposing of the application made by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein by his order at Annexure-B to this petition. It appears that the order at annexure B to this petition was passed on some extraneous considerations keeping in mind the aforesaid communication of 22nd October 1982 from the petitioner-Municipality to the Collector of Mehsana in response to his communication of 22nd September 1982. Respondent No. 4 acting on behalf of respondent No. 3 was therefore justified, in exercise of the powers under Sec. 211 of the Code, in interfering with the aforesaid order of the Collector of Mehsana at Annexure B to this petition.