HABIBBHAI ALARAKHABHAI MEMON Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the following prayers made in para 6 thereof:-

(2.) As could be noticed from the facts stated in impugned orders as also from the averments in the petition, the proceedings for breach of condition in connection the land bearing Survey No.128 were initiated against the petitioners and two societies, named Prem Parivar Co-operative Housing Society and Marutinagar Cooperative Housing Society. Such proceedings were initiated under Sections 66 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 ('the Code') on the ground that the constructions were made on the land in question without taking permission for non-agricultural use of the land under Section 65 of the Code and without getting the plan sanctioned from Rajkot Municipal Corporation. The Deputy Collector on being satisfied that the constructions on the land in question were without any permission under Section 65 of the Code and that there was no permission from the Corporation as also from the Urban Land Ceiling Department, passed order dated 20.8.1997 to remove the constructions made on the land in question and for payment of penalty under the Code. The Deputy Collector also ordered that the concerned departments of the Municipal Corporation and the Urban Land Ceiling shall be required to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Such order of the Deputy Collector has come to be confirmed by the Collector and further confirmed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in the appeal and revision respectively filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Bhatt for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.6 took undue advantage of the good relation which he had with the father of the petitioners and the father of the petitioners who was illiterate person though signed any document, like power of attorney or any other document for the purpose of making any construction on the land in question, however illegal constructions were made on the land in question as if the father of the petitioners had given authority for making constructions for housing societies. Mr. Bhatt submitted that when the petitioners were responsible for making any illegal/ unauthorized constructions on the land in question, no proceedings for breach and violation of the provisions of Section 65 of the Code could have been taken against them, being the heirs of the original owner of the land in question. Mr. Bhatt submitted that instead of taking any action against the private respondents for making unauthorized construction in the name of the housing societies, the petitioners were subjected to proceedings under the Code and therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Collector for taking action under Section 66 of the Code was required to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Bhatt submitted that since the order made by the Deputy Collector is void ab initio and illegal and since the petitioners were responsible for any unauthorized development on the land in question, the so-called development permission in connection with the land in question stands invalid and is also required to be cancelled.