KOLI POPATBHAI TALSIBHAI Vs. SECRETARY- APPEAL & 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.

(2.) By preferring this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (SSRD for short), the first respondent herein, whereby the application for review of the order dated 03.10.2007 of the SSRD was not entertained, the order dated 03.10.2007 of the SSRD, the order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the second respondent, Collector, Rajkot and the order dated 10.03.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that land bearing Survey No.222, admeasuring 5 Acres and 20 Gunthas, situated at Village Nakrawadi, District Rajkot (the land in question), was granted to the father of the present petitioner as "Santhani" land for the purpose of cultivation. This land was granted as new tenure land, subject to certain conditions as contained in the order of allotment dated 18.07.1975. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since the allotment, the land was being regularly cultivated by the father of the petitioner and, thereafter, by the petitioner. Condition No.7 in the order of allotment states that if the land remains fallow, without any reason, it would be liable to be resumed by the State Government. A Show Cause Notice dated 101.1997 was issued by the Deputy Collector, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the land in question should not be ordered to vest in the State Government, on the ground that it was kept fallow for the years 199192 and 199495. The petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice in March 1997, explaining that he could not cultivate the land due to financial difficulties, a poor monsoon and the illness of his father. The petitioner explained that his family consists of twelve members and the entire family is solely dependent upon the land in question for their livelihood. The petitioner also pointed out that immediately after the period of the breach, the land has been cultivated by him and, even at the time of replying to the notice, the land was under cultivation, which aspect could be verified by an inquiry. The reply of the petitioner did not find favour with the Deputy Collector who, by his impugned order dated 10.01997, directed that the land be vested in the State Government.