JIGARBHAI KAUSHIKBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Collector, whereby the Deputy Collector disposed of/filed the application dated 19.04.2018 made by the petitioner for grant of Non-Agricultural Permission (N.A. Permission) for the land bearing survey no.2659 admeasuring 3845 sq.mtr., situated at mouje Kakarkhad, Taluka: Nadiad. By the impugned order dated 18.05.2018, the Deputy Collector has disposed/filed the application of the petitioner on two different grounds; one is that by order dated 20.04.2018 passed in Ganot Appeal No.14 of 2017, the status-quo in respect of the land was to be maintained till the final disposal of the appeal and second is that the applicant-Ramabhai Ranchhodbhai Tadpada had raised objection on 23.04.2018 against receipt of the payment of premium amount.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Patel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the order made by the Collector dated 05.04.2018 in connection with the entry proceedings, the Collector has ordered that on payment of premium amount, the petitioner shall get the entry restored of the registered sale deed executed in his favour. Mr.Patel submitted that since, the petitioner is agreeable to pay the premium amount, the petitioner would become entitled to grant of N.A. Permission as legal occupant of the land in question. He submitted that in the proceedings of Ganot Appeal No.14 of 2017 before the Deputy Collector, the grievance of the tenant was only for 3 guntha of the land and excluding such 3 guntha of land, the petitioner would, otherwise, be entitled to grant of N.A. Permission and, therefore, the Deputy Collector was not justified in not considering the application of the petitioner for N.A. Permission on the ground that the tenant has raised the objection against the acceptance of the premium amount from the petitioner. Mr. Patel further submitted that Ganot Appeal No.14 of 2017 came to be finally disposed of and the Deputy Collector, while disposing of such appeal, has clarified that since, the appeal is disposed of, the order of status-quo shall not remain in operation, therefore, the grounds on which the application of the petitioner was not considered and disposed of, did not exist. Mr. Patel submitted that the Deputy Collector is, therefore, required to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of N.A. Permission on receipt of the premium amount from the petitioner, when the petitioner is agreeable to pay the premium amount.

(3.) Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Thakor submitted that though the Deputy Collector has clarified that the order of status-quo shall not continue on making final order in Ganot Appeal No.14 of 2017, however, the fact remains that the said appeal came to be partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar. Ms. Thakor submitted that when the Mamlatdar is to decide the case on remand, the application of the petitioner could, otherwise, not be considered till the Mamlatdar finally decides the remand case. Ms. Thakor submitted that as per the order of the Collector, the sale transaction could not be considered valid till the petitioner deposit the premium amount under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and appropriate order to regularize the sale transaction is made. She, therefore, urged to reject this petition.