JETHIBEN SHEKHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Nanavati, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for all the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the sides, the matter is heard finally today.

(2.) The short facts on which, there is no dispute, are as under:- (a) The petitioners concerned made application to the Mamlatdar for grant of the Government land and thereafter the Mamlatdar forwarded his opinion for supporting the proposal of the petitioners concerned. The Dy. Collector directed the concerned petitioners, who applied for allotment of the land, to grant the land on payment of the amount as mentioned in the order. Similar order came to be passed by the Dy. Collector in respect of 12 to 13 agriculturists and all were granted land from the land bearing Survey No.540 at Village Sarva.

(3.) As per the petitioners, the respondent authority handed over the possession of the land by drawing panchnama and thereafter the District Collector exercised the revisional power and ultimately as per the order dated 13.7.2000 passed by the District Collector the allotment made is cancelled in respect of all allottees, who were beneficiaries as per the order of the Dy. Collector. It appears that various revisions came to be preferred before the State Government by the persons concerned, who were allotted land, including the revisions preferred by the petitioners as well as the revisions preferred by one Kumbar Ranchhod Raiyabhai and Talsibhai Muljibhai being Revision Applications No.63 of 2000 and No.77 of 2000, whereas the revision of the petitioners were Nos.53 of 2000, 65 of 2000, 62 of 2000 and 57 of 2000. However, the State Government while exercising the revisional jurisdiction in the matter of revision No.63 of 2000 preferred by Kumbar Ranchhod Raiyabhai and the Revision Application No.77 of 2000 preferred by Talsi Muljibhai has partly allowed the revisions and by quashing the order of the Collector has directed for remand of the matter to the Collector for reconsideration in light of the observations made by the State Government in the order, whereas in the aforesaid revisions preferred by the petitioners, the decisions are taken by the State Government to dismiss the revisions and the order of the Collector is confirmed. On the aforesaid aspects, there is no dispute even as per the submissions made by the learned AGP during the course of the hearing.