YASINBHAI NOOR M BHURANIA Vs. BHURANIA RAFIKBHAI HASANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner Noormohammad Bhurania was granted three parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 92/1, 93 & 94 situated at Dungriasan, Taluka Siddhpur by the Collector vide order dated 30.04.1976.

(2.) It appears that the land was a waste land and it was given to the father of the petitioner for cultivation. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the father of the petitioner expired and the petitioner has acquired the land. As per the petitioner, the land was developed, cultivation was made to the extent of the availability of the land and Babool & Eucalyptus trees were grown over the said land. It appears that the respondent No.1 made application to the District Collector regarding non-observance of certain conditions and on that basis, the proceedings came to be initiated against father of the petitioner by the Deputy Collector, but thereafter, passed the order on 20.05.1994, whereby he found that the cultivation was not made during certain period because of non-availability of the water and during the monsoon, the cultivation has been made and he found that there was no breach of the condition and hence, the chapter was filed. It appears that respondent No. J carried the matter before the Collector and the Collector passed the order of 01.09.1995, whereby he found that the trees were grown and also the cultivation was made and there was no case for breach of the condition. It was also observed by the District Collector that the respondent No.1 is a third party and because of family dispute, it appears that the application is made and therefore ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by the District Collector. It appears that the respondent No. 1 further carried the matter before the State Government and the State Government found that the cultivation was required to be made over the whole area and as per the report of the Circle Inspector such position is not reflected there is breach of condition, and therefore, the revision was allowed and the order of the Collector was set aside. It is under these circumstances, the present petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for Mr M.C. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Naik for respondent No.1 and Mr.Chhaya, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2 to 5 State Authorities.