ASHOK KUMAR SHANTILAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Vishrut R. Jani, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 24.12.2013, passed by the District Collector, Banaskantha (respondent No. 3 herein), as well as the order dated 26.05.2016, passed by the second respondent - Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (the SSRD), whereby Non Agricultural use permission (NA permission) granted to the petitioner, upon levy of fine, has been cancelled in spite of the payment of such fine by the petitioner.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased land bearing Survey Nos.366, 367, 368, 369, 373 and 374/10A (New Revenue Survey No. 366), comprising of 3743 sq.mtrs. in Palanpur, vide a Registered Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003. Mutation Entry No.15952 was posted in the revenue records pursuant to the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had applied to respondent No. 3 - District Collector for the grant of NA permission, which was granted vide an order dated 31.12.2002. As per Conditions Nos. 6 and 12 of the aforesaid order, construction was to commence within a period of six months from the grant of the NA permission and was to be completed within a period of three years therefrom. As the petitioner could not fulfill these conditions of the NA order, he approached the Collector, seeking extension of time. By an order dated 24.03.2008, the Collector, extended the NA permission by imposing a penalty of 40 "patt". It was stated in the order that the extension of the NA permission was granted for a further period of two years, subject to the payment of penalty within a period of 21 days. The petitioner challenged this order of the District Collector before the SSRD. By an order dated 08.07.2013, the revision application of the petitioner was dismissed by the SSRD and the order of the District Collector dated 24.03.2008, levying penalty, was confirmed. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid penalty to the District Collector which was accepted by him. However, after accepting the penalty, the Collector, vide the impugned order dated 24.12.2013, cancelled the NA permission on the ground that the period of extension granted by order dated 24.03.2008 had already elapsed. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner challenged it before the SSRD. The SSRD, by the impugned order dated 26.05.2016, rejected the revision application of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Collector cancelling the NA permission.