ARVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL Vs. DAHYABHAI BHALABHAI VAGHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is the successor-in-title of the owner of the disputed land bearing Survey No.1090 admeasuring 1-Acre-20-Gunthas situated at Nadiad. The respondents nos.1 and 2 claimed to be the tenants in the said land. The respondents nos.3 to 10 are the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner Shri Gopalbhai Becharbhai Patel.

(2.) The petitioner and two others had purchased the disputed land from its original owner Shri Gopalbhai Becharbhai Patel by a registered sale-deed executed on 8th October, 1992. The said two others, being non-agriculturists, had subsequently relinquished their right and interest in the disputed land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thus became the exclusive owner of the disputed land. On application made by the petitioner, permission for non-agricultural use (N.A. use) of the disputed land came to be granted on 1st December, 1993 by order of the District Collector, Kheda on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. The said order dated 1st December, 1993 was challenged by the respondents nos.1 and 2 on 8th March, 1996 in Revision Application No.3/1996 preferred before the State Government. The State Government, in exercise of power of suo motu revision, issued notice dated 20th April, 1996 in Revision Application No.2/1996 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why the aforesaid order dated 1st December, 1993, for the reasons stated, not be cancelled. The said notice was replied by the petitioner. The State Government (Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department), by common order dated 12th August, 1996 made on aforesaid Revision Applications Nos.2/1996 and 3/1996, cancelled the aforesaid order dated 1st December, 1993. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Mr.Anjaria has appeared for the petitioner. He has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the State Government did not exercise its power of suo motu revision conferred by Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Code ) within reasonable time. He has submitted that the revision application was in fact preferred by the respondents nos.1 and 2 after the expiry of the period of limitation of ninety days. The said revision application was, therefore, not maintainable. He has next submitted that the revision application was allowed on the grounds that the District Collector had failed to take into consideration the distance from the canal passing nearby the disputed land; that the petitioner had made certain alterations contrary to the sanctioned plans and that the claim of the respondents nos.1 and 2 of being tenants in the land in question was pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Until the said issue was resolved, the District Collector ought not to have granted the permission for N.A. use of the disputed land. Mr.Anjaria has submitted that none of the said objections was tenable. He has relied upon the revenue map produced on the record. He has submitted that the disputed land Survey No.1090 is at some distance from the canal. Many of the lands between the disputed land and the canal are already developed and constructed upon. Evidently, the existence of canal at some distance from the disputed land was no hindrance against granting permission for N.A. use of the said land.