HARSHADKUMAR DHIRAJLAL AUNDKAT Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel.

(2.) The petitioner herein was allotted a piece of land admeasuring 1277.40 sq.mtrs. out of S.No.707 situated at village Dhrol by the order dt.9.7.82 for constructing a Factory premises for the purposes of manufacturing soap and other products. The petitioner failed to make use of this land allotted to him and did not make any construction within the stipulated period. The Assistant Collector, Jamnagar by his order dt.9.8.89 directed to take the possession of the said land from the petitioner on account of the breach of the conditions committed by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an Appeal against the said order before the Collector, Jamnagar and that Appeal was rejected. He then preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was also rejected on 12.10.95. The petitioner in this very cause preferred Special Civil Application No.1245/96 stating therein the reasons for his inability to raise the construction in question. The Court while issuing Rule on 7.1.97 also heard the matter and observed that the reasons, which were given by the petitioner for not making use of the said land, required consideration and that the same had not been put forth before the Collector, Jamnagar and, therefore, the same could not be considered. In these circumstances, the Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner to approach the Collector, Jamangar within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the order i.e. 7.1.97 by making a detailed representation as to why he was not in a position to make the construction and why action proposed against him should not be taken against him. On his making such a representation the Collector, Jamangar was to consider and decide the same according to the Rules and Regulations within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the representation. The Court also ordered that the Collector shall serve the order on the petitioner and that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before the Collector and should make the representation within 2 weeks from today i.e. the date of the order - 7.1.97 without failure and the Collector should decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. With the directions, as aforesaid, the Special Civil Application No.1245/96 was disposed of.

(3.) Instead of making the representation within 2 weeks without failure, as ordered by the Court i.e. by 21.1.97 (2 weeks from 7.1.97) the petitioner submitted the application/representation dt.11.2.97, which was received by the Collector on 3.3.97. The Collector, Jamnagar has noted in the impugned order dt.10.4.97 that on the basis of the order dt.7.1.97 passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No.1245/96, the petitioner had made the application/representation dt.11.2.97 on 3.3.97, but no details had been given in this application as to why the industry was not started. According to the Collector, Jamnagar, the application / representation was also required to be made by 22.1.97 but the same was given on 3.3.97. It appears that the petitioner then moved one more application on 13.6.97 before the Collector, Jamnagar and this application dt.13.6.97 was replied by the Collector, Jamnagar vide its communication dt.3.7.97 stating therein that the petitioner had not given any details and only an application was given on 3.3.97 for hearing.