DHIRAJLAL MOHANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased certain land admeasuring 3 Acres 16 Gunthas of Survey No.191 from Maganlal Mavjibhai Patel under a registered sale deed dated 1st November, 1994. On 2nd November, 1994, Mutation Entry No.1516 was effected in Village Form No.6 and thereafter, on 3rd December, 1994, the Mamlatdar, Morbi certified the aforesaid mutation entry. Certain correspondence was exchanged between the concerned authorities, which ultimately led to a report by the Taluka Development Officer, Morbi in favour of the petitioner. On 14th February, 1995, the District Development Officer, i. e. respondent No.2, granted permission for non-agricultural use. The petitioner thereafter paid the conversion charges, got the maps and plans sanctioned and started erecting his industry. On 5th May, 1997, the Architect and Engineer issued certificates certifying the investments made by the petitioner. On 3rd/4th March, 1997, the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the permission dated 14th February, 1995 granted by the District Development Officer be not cancelled. On 20th/21st March, 1997, the petitioner submitted his reply. However, on 17th April, 1997, the respondent-State, through the concerned Deputy Secretary, cancelled the permission dated 14th February, 1995. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 17th April, 1997, is now before this Court.

(2.) Shri B.G. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not an isolated case of grant of conversion permission, but, he was one from the larger flock. According to him, number of industries have been raised and development in the agricultural zone has taken place, but, no action has been taken against other industries and for the reasons best known to the authorities, the petitioner has been singled out. His submission is that the State Government is well aware of the fact that a particular area is being developed as industrial zone, but, the State Government has not taken any action against anybody. His further submission is that the revisional powers in a case like the present should have been exercised within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, less realising that the permission was accorded on 14th February, 1995, the Deputy Secretary wanted to exercise the powers after more than two years. His submission is that the order dated 17th April, 1997 deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Ms. Kachchhi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the orders passed by the State Government are justified because such permission could not have been granted.