BIPINCHANDRA G DALAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are directed against the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat in exercise of power conferred by sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter called the Code) whereby he cancelled the permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer Mangrol (hereinafter called TDO) under sec. 65 of the Code. The facts giving rise to these petitions briefly stated are as under.

(2.) The first petition Special Civil Application No. 4577 of 1984 has been filed by two petitioners who had applied under sec. 65 of the Code for-permission to make non-agricultural use of the land bearing Survey No. 152/1 in Block No. 120 admeasuring about 4 acres 3 gunthas which they had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 20/07/1981 for Rs. 40 401 The case of the petitioners is that they were entitled to purchase the land in question since they themselves Were agriculturists The lands in question are situate in village Mota Borsava in Mangrol Taluka which falls in Zone III of the Industrial Zones created under the incentive scheme floated by the State Government under Government Resolution dated 22/12/1977. As the land was situate in Zone III comprising Mangrol Taluka the petitioners were entitled to certain incentives for setting up small medium or large industries in the said zone. The petitioners made an application dated 16/08/1982 for permission to use the land in question for non-agricultural purposes namely plotting the same for construction of industrial sheds and residences. The TDO granted permission by his order dated 6/11/1982 Annexure A. It is the say of the petitioners that after the permission was granted under sec. 65 of the Code the lay out plans were prepared and 45 sub-plots created thereunder were sold to different persons by registered sale deeds as detailed in Annexure C. It appears from the said Annexure that the lands were sold on 7th/ 8/07/1983 to different persons. The actual possession of the lands sold to these persons was also transferred.

(3.) The petitioners say that to their utter surprise they received a notice dated 8th/ 11/05/1984 threatening to cancel the permission granted by the TDO on 6/11/1982 in exercise of revisional powers conferred by sec. 211 of the Code. Annexure B to the petition is the show cause notice issued by the Secretary (Appeals). Objections were filed to the said show cause notice and oral submissions were made through advocate at the date of hearing. The Secretary (Appeals) however by his order dated 26/06/1984 rejected the objections and cancelled the permission granted by the TDO under sec. 65 of the Code. In doing so he held that the TDO had failed to follow the guidelines laid down by Government Resolution dated 25/03/1981 inasmuch as the permission was granted without consulting the concerned authorities including the Industries Department as required by the said guidelines. He also came to the conclusion that the procedure required to be followed in cases where a highway is passing along the land had not been followed by the TDO. The contention regarding limitation was brushed aside on the ground that in view of two decisions of this Court in Kamalkhan Ajitkhan v. State of Gujarat Special Civil Application No. 395 of 1978 decided on 27/03/1978 and Gulam Yasinmiya Shaikh v. Collector Surat Special Civil Application No. 2022 of 1974 dated 3/05/1978 both reported in (1978) 15 GLT at pages 147 and 179 respectively it was permissible to exercise revisional powers after a lapse of two or three years also and since in the instant case no construction had taken place the exercise of power was not likely to cause any prejudice to the petitioners.