LALJIBHAI GHUDHABHAI JHAPADIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions are taken up for hearing together as they emanate out of common order dated 13/10/2008 (06/10/2008) made by the Revisional Authority in the backdrop of following facts.

(2.) VIDE order dated nil/08/1977 lands described in the said order situated at Village Gogla, Tal. Dhandhuka, Dist: Ahmedabad was shown to have been granted to the Forest Department and the status was accordingly changed in revenue record by the said order. The District Collector came to the conclusion that as the Forest Department was not using the land for the purpose for which the land had been allotted on 15/02/2005 an order came to be made in relation to 8930 Acres 0. 03 Gunthas for resuming the said land and vesting the same in the Government out of total area of 10138 Acres 0. 03 Gunthas which had been granted. Immediately thereafter on 28/02/2005 the District Collector passed an order cancelling the earlier order made by him on 15/02/2005 recording that the land in question was being used by the Forest Department and recording that 1225 Acres had already been put to use for the purpose of afforestation.

(3.) TWO Revision Applications came to be filed on 19/12/2006 and 20/12/2006 by: (1) the Gogla Ganotiya Sahakari Kheti Mandali and, (2) Gogla Samudayik Kheti Sahakari Mandali Ltd. , challenging the order dated 28/02/2005 made by the District Collector. It is the say of the two societies that part of the very same land which is stated to have been allotted to the Forest Department was being cultivated by the said two societies and relevant 7-12 extracts for various years denote the land having been cultivated by the said two societies. That the possession is with the said two societies and therefore the order made by Collector on 28/02/2005 was bad in law. It is further submitted that in the land occupied by the two societies Forest Department has not grown any trees and therefore also the order dated 28/02/2005 allotting the land to the Forest Department was bad in law.