DAHYABHAI LALDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the District Development Officer at Gandhinagar (respondent No. 2 herein) on 21st March, 1988 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 1 herein) on 30th January, 1989 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 cancelled that is popularly known as the N. A. permission granted by him by the order passed on 11th February, 1982 with respect to one parcel of land bearing Block No. 1066 admeasuring 23 acres 30 gunthas situated at Adalaj in Gandhinagar Taluka and District (the disputed land for convenience).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. It appears that the disputed land was owned and occupied by the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioners, named, Dahyabhai Laldas (the deceased for convenience). It appears to be a new tenure land. He appears to have applied on 1st February, 1982 for its N.A. use. By his order passed on 11th February, 1982, respondent No. 2 granted the necessary permission for its N. A. use on certain terms and conditions. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It inter alia fixed the premium to the tune of Rs. 88650 at the rate of 50% of the market value for its conversion from new tenure to old tenure and the amount was required to be paid within two months from the date of the order. It transpires from the material on record that the premium amount so fixed was paid on 5th April 1982. The order at Annexure A appears to have come to the notice of the concerned officer of respondent No. 1. He appears to have found it not according of law. Its suo motu revision under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief) was therefore contemplated. A show-cause notice thereupon came to be issued on 15th October 1983 calling upon the deceased to show cause why the order at Annexure A to this petition should not be cancelled. After hearing the parties, by the order passed on 27th February 1984 by and on behalf of respondent No. 1, only that part of the order at Annexure A to this petition fixing the premium amount for the purpose of conversion from new tenure to old tenure came to be cancelled. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. Thereunder the premium fixation was left to the Collector of Gandhinagar. While the matter remained pending before the Collector at Gandhinagar for fixation of the premium amount for its' conversion from new tenure to old tenure, a notification came to be issued on 9th December, 1985 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for brief) inter alia acquiring 86501 square meters of land from the disputed land. A copy of the aforesaid notification as appearing in "Gujarat Samachar" daily of 26th December, 1985 is at Annexure C to this petition. While the matter relating to the premium fixation was pending before the Collector at Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2 issued one show-cause notice on 17th November, 1987 calling upon the deceased to show cause why the N. A. permission granted by the order at Annexure A to this petition should not be cancelled on the ground of breach of certain conditions mentioned therein. A copy of the aforesaid show-cause notice is at Annexure D to this petition. It appears that the deceased filed his reply thereto on 14th December, 1987. Its copy is at Annexure E to this petition. Thereafter, by the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 21st March, 1988, the N. A. permission granted by the order at Annexure A to this petition came to be cancelled. Its copy is at Annexure F to this petition. The aggrieved deceased carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 1 under Sec. 211 of the Code. By the order passed on 30th January 1989, respondent No. 1 rejected the revisional application. Its copy is at Annexure G to this petition. It appears that the deceased breathed his last in the meantime leaving behind him the present petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. They were aggrieved by the orders at Annexures F and G to this petition. They have therefore 171 approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure F to this petition as affirmed in revision by the order at Annexure G to this petition.

(3.) It may be noted that the disputed land admeasured 23 acres 30 gunthas. Its area in the metric system would be around 96000 square meters. By the notification at Annexure C to this petition, an area of 86501 square meters therefrom has been acquired. Relying on the notification at Annexure C to this petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Sompura for the respondents has urged that the N.A. permission at Annexure A to this petition became infructuous even otherwise and this petition need not therefore be entertained. As against this, learned Advocate Shri Patel for the petitioners has urged that, by the order at Annexure B to this petition, the N.A. permission was not cancelled and the entire disputed land has not been acquired, and as such the N.A. persmission at Annexure A to this petition would remain in operation for the balance area.