BAHADURSINHJI DEVENDRASINHJI TENNIS CLUB Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner club by way of present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 28.03.2003 (AnnexureJ) passed by the Respondent No.1 in Revision Application, whereby the respondent No.1 has confirmed the order dated 26.09.2002 passed by the Respondent No.2 Collector (AnnexureI) and also the order dated 06.02.1992 (AnnexureG) passed by the Respondent No.3 Deputy Collector as also the order dated 27.05.1980 (AnnexureF) passed by the Respondent No.4 City Survey Superintendent.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was Club established about more than 100 years ago by His Highness Bahadursinhji Mansinhji of Palitana. His Highness had also donated land bearing Survey No.215 for the purpose of establishing the said tennis club. After the independence and after the merger of the states in the year 1949, due to formation of Saurashtra State, the said club was merged in the State as per Clause 9 of the inventory made between His Highness and Suarashtra State (AnnexureC). However, at the request made by His Highness not to merge the said land used for the establishment of club, the State vide the letter dated 10.08.1949 (Annexure D) had communicated to the Private Secretary to His Highness that the club building would be used as club till it exists, otherwise it would belong to the State. According to the petitioner, thereafter said Club was being used as Club, however, the Respondent No.4 initiated an inquiry under section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code') for verifying the status and ownership of the land.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the Respondent No.4 without issuing any notice to the petitioner or any of its members, passed the order on 27.05.1980, making the entry in favour of the State in the revenue record of Palitana stating that the land belonged to the government as the whereabouts of the occupant/owner were not known. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter possession of the club alongwith land in question and its furniture and fixtures was taken over by the Respondent No.3 Deputy Collector on 15.12.1991. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner club had applied for the Sanad for the land in question by its application dated 04.10.1991, however, the petitioner received the reply from the said survey office that the land in question was the property of the state government. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Assistant Collector against the order dated 27.05.1980 passed by the Inquiry Officer City Survey, Palitana. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide the order dated 06.02.1992 (AnnexureF), against which the petitioner preferred revision application before the Respondent No.2Collector. The said order dated 06.02.1992 having been confirmed by the Collector vide the order dated 21.07.1993, the petitioner had preferred Revision Application before the Respondent No.1SSRD. The said Revision came to be partly allowed by the SSRD by holding that the said property belonged to the Government vide the order dated 12.05.1999 (AnnexureH), however, the matter as to whether the club was being used as club or not be decided afresh by the Collector after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Collector after the remand of the case vide the order dated 26.09.2002 (AnnexureI) held to the effect that there was no activity being conducted by the members of the club and there was no existence of any legal body of the club. The Collector therefore confirmed the order dated 06.02.1992 passed by the Assistant Collector. Being aggrieved by the said er, petitioner again preferred the Revision Application before the Respondent No.1SSRD, who vide the impugned order dated 04.04.2003 (AnnexureJ) rejected the said Revision Application in limine. Petitioner therefore has filed the present petition.