PASHABHAI BHANBHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Deputy Collector at Baroda on 7th December, 1985 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Collector of Baroda on 19th June 1986 in Land Appeal No. 1 of 1986 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department at Ahmedabad on behalf of the State of Gujarat (the respondent herein) on 12th February, 1988 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order the Deputy Collector at Baroda confiscated one parcel of land bearing survey No. 136 (Final Plot No. 69) admeasuring 1411 square meters situated at village Vasna-Saiyed, taluka Vadodara (the disputed land for convenience).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land was regranted to the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioners (the deceased for convenience) by the order passed on 12th/23rd January, 1964 by the Assistant Collector at Vadodara. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. The regrant was on the condition of its non-transferability and impartibility. It appears that it was included in one town planning scheme framed under the law relating to town planning. The original area of the land was 0 acre 19 gunthas and it was assigned official plot No. 69 in the town planning scheme and it measured 1411 square meters. It appears that in the meantime the deceased breathed his last some time on 11th November, 1983 leaving behind him the present petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. They appears to have obtained what is popularly known as the development permission under Sec. 29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (the TP Act for brief). Pursuant thereto, they appear to have started construction activity through their power-in-attorney-holder. This construction activity appears to have come to the notice of the concerned officer in the office of the Collector of Vadodara. Thereupon the Deputy Collector at Vadodara issued one show-cause notice on 28th October 1985 calling upon the petitioners through their power-of-attorney-holder to show cause why the land should not be confiscated to and resumed by the Government for raising construction therein in breach of the conditions attached to grant thereof. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. It appears that prior thereto an application was made on 19th December, 1983 for conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure. No reply appears to have been filed to the aforesaid show-cause notice. Thereafter, by the order passed on 7th December, 1985, the Deputy Collector ordered confiscated of the disputed land to the government on the ground of breach of condition attached to the order of grant. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the Collector of Vadodara under Sec. 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief). It came to be registered as Appeal No. 1 of 1986. By his order passed on 19th June, 1986 in the aforesaid appeal, the Collector of Vadodara dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure D to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in revision before the respondent under Sec. 211 of the Code. By the order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 12th February, 1988, the respondent rejected the revisional application. Its copy is at Annexure E to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Anand for the respondents has urged that this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Thereupon learned Advocate Shri Patel for the petitioners has orally prayed for treating this petition as also under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. This prayer is accepted and this petition is ordered to be treated as also under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the condition of payment of the deficit court-fees, if any, within 15 days from today.