ALKESHBHAI KASHIRAM PATEL Vs. DINESHCHANDRA MANILAL DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner initially had filed the present petition seeking declaration that the plans produced by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were illegal and fraudulent, and therefore, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be restrained from sanctioning the said plans. Subsequently, the petition was sought to be amended by incorporating the prayer challenging the N.A. Permission granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the Collector on 27.06.2018.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner had agreed to purchase the land bearing Survey No. 2409 admeasruing 4 acres 17 gunthas 84 sq. mtrs. situated at village Abhrana, Talula Jalalpor, District Valsad. Since the original owners were not executing the sale deeds, the petitioner had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement, being Civil Suit No. 3 of 2005. The Civil Court at Navsari had passed the decree in favour of the petitioner on the condition of depositing Rs. 3,59,517. The original owners being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree had preferred the First Appeal being No. 2331 of 2008 before the High Court, which is pending. Pending the said First Appeal, the High Court had stayed the execution of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. According to the petitioner, he had filed an application for vacating the said stay, in which the Court had passed the order giving various directions, acknowledging the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the said land. It is further case of the petitioner that on the northern side of the petitioner's land bearing Survey No. 2409, there was an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 2363 belonging to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had applied for the N.A. permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for setting up a small scale industry, to which the petitioner and other farmers having their lands of surrounding the said land, had objected, however, the Collector had granted N.A. permission on 27.06.2018. According to the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had in the layout plan wrongly shown 12 mtrs. road on the southern side of their land which infact did not exist at the site. However, without making any verification at the site, the said permission was granted and hence, the petition.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the affidavit - in - reply challenging the maintainability of the petition at the instance of the petitioner, on the ground that he was not the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 2409. It is further contended that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts and had made false statement in the petition which required petition to be dismissed. According to these respondents, they have been granted N.A. Permission after following the procedure which could not be challenged in the petition, as an alternative remedy of filing revision application under Section 211 of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, would be available to the petitioner.