LAWS(GJH)-2007-6-167

RANJITSINGH GAJESINGH OSWAL Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY

Decided On June 15, 2007
RANJITSINGH GAJESINGH OSWAL Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY SECRETARY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the Court proceedings, it appears that on 21st March, 1997, this Court directed respondent No.2, Taluka Development Officer, to remain in attendance along with the relevant record.

(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present Writ Application are that respondent No.4, Parshottambhai, Bhagabhai Patel, made an application to the Taluka Development Officer for conversion of the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural. The matter was considered by the Taluka Panchayat and thereafter, the Executive Committee of Taluka Panchayat, in its meeting dated 13th March, 1989, resolved to grant the permission. The matter was referred to the Taluka Development Officer, who, in accordance with the resolution, granted the permission. After obtaining the permission, respondent No.4, Parshottambhai Bhagabhai Patel, earmarked certain plots in the said land and the petitioners purchased one plot each. After obtaining the legal permission from the Taluka Panchayat, they had constructed and developed a house. It appears that the permission dated 15th March, 1989 granted by the Taluka Development Officer was taken in suo motu revision by the learned Deputy Collector on 23rd July, 1992. The petitioners appeared before the said Deputy Collector and submitted their reply, but, the learned Deputy Collector vide his order dated 26th February, 1993, set aside the permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer. Parshottambhai Bhagabhai Patel, the original land holder/owner, filed Revision Application No. SRD/BKHP/MSN/27/95. However, the said revision came to be dismissed on 22nd July, 1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) The learned Secretary (Appeals), in his order, has observed that the learned Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction or authority to take up the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer in suo motu revision, but, however, he held that such authority vests in the learned Secretary (Appeals). Therefore, the permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer could be cancelled. Accordingly, the learned Secretary (Appeals) dismissed the revision and maintained the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector.