LUHAR DHANJIBHAI KANJUIBHAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred seeking following reliefs: quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent No. 1 bearing No. SRD/bkhp/smr/1/89 dated 5. 5. 1990, order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 2. 7. 1991 and the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 11. 12. 1995 and the communication issued by respondent No. 3 dated 9. 1. 1997 and forbide the respondents, their, agents, servants, officers and subordinates from taking any steps in pursuance of the impugned orders and declare that the petitioners have not put up any illegal construction; pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to issue an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and officers from in any manner implementing and enforcing the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 5. 5. 1990, order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 02. 07. 1991 and the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 11. 12. 1995 and the communication issued by respondent No. 3 dated 9. 1. 1997; an ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para (b) above may kindly be granted; be pleased to award the costs of this petition; be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice. "

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that land bearing Survey No. 2/1, admeasuring 0. 35 gunthas was permitted to be converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural land for industrial use vide order No. Land/na/82 dated 22. 07. 1982 by the Taluka Development Officer. That therefore the original owner of the land one Shri Dalabhai Nathubhai Vankar sold certain parts of the said land to the petitioners by registered sale deeds as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2936_TLGJ0_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) IT appears that during course of proceedings relating to certain other parcel of land of the same survey number the original land owner had sought permission for conversion into non-agricultural land and the proceedings travelled right upto the State Government when the order dated 22. 07. 1982 made by the Taluka Development Officer was noticed. Hence, suo motu revisional action was initiated under provisions of Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code (the Code) vide show cause notice dated 03. 02. 1990. Admittedly, the said show cause notice was issued only to the original land owner and the petitioners, bona fide purchasers of the land in question, were not called upon to reply. The original land owner tendered reply on 13. 02. 1990 and the said reply contained details of the land sold to the petitioners. Ultimately, the State Government framed an order on 31. 03. 1990 / 05. 05. 1990 cancelling the order dated 22. 07. 1982 made by Taluka Development Officer.