GOVINDBHAI SOMABHAI NAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners challenge the order of Secretary (Appeals) Government of Gujarat dated 29/08/1983 whereby he cancelled the order of the Taluka Development Officer dated 19/ 20/04/1982 granting permission to the owners/occupants of certain lands situate in Kalol Taluka of Mehsana District for making non-agricultural use of the said lands. The facts leading to this group of petitions briefly stated are as under.

(2.) The lands which are the subject matter of these petitions were admittedly agricultural in character. The owners/occupants of the said lands preferred applications dated 13/ 14/04/1982 under sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (the Code for short) for permission to make non-agricultural use of their lands to the Taluka Panchayat. The Taluka Development Officer Kalol granted the permission by his order dated 19/ 20/04/1982. On the Secretary (Appeals) Government of Gujarat coming to know about the same he issued show cause notices dated 31/03/1983 purporting to act under sec. 211 of the Code calling upon the owners/occupants to show cause why the order of the Taluka Development Officer Kalol granting permission to make non-agricultural use of the lands should not be revised. After taking into consideration the objections filed by the owners/occupants of the lands in question the Secretary (Appeals) passed the impugned order on 29/08/1983 cancelling the permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer Kalol and remanding the matter back to the District Panchayat Mehsana for passing appropriate orders on merits in accordance with the law and the relevant rules in that behalf. The Secretary (Appeals) cancelled the order of the Taluka Development Officer principally on the ground that there was a total lack of jurisdiction and consequently the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer was ab initio void. He came to the conclusion that the power to grant permission under sec. 65 of the Code vested in the District Panchayat and not the Taluka Panchayat and therefore the Taluka Development Officer Kalol had no jurisdiction whatsoever to exercise power under that provision. In this view that he took he cancelled the permission granted by the Taluka Development Officer and ramanded the matter to the District Panchayat for disposal on merits in accordance with law. It is this order of remand made by the Secretary (Appeals) which is questioned by the petitioners in this group of petitions brought under Art. 226 of the Constitution .

(3.) Since the lands were agricultural in character they could not be used for any other purpose except with the permission of the Collector under sec. 65 of the Code. That section insofar as it is relevant for our purpose reads as under: