STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PASHABHAI BHANABHAI VANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment dated 28/06/1996 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2264/88, by which order passed by the Collector, Vadodara on 27/06/1986 as confirmed in revision by the State Government vide order dated 12/02/1988 requiring the respondents to obtain N.A. permission under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, is set aside.

(2.) The predecessor in title of the respondents was regranted land by order dated January 12/23, 1964 on certain terms and conditions. The predecessor-in-title of the respondents expired in November, 1983. The respondents had obtained necessary building permission under section 29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("Act" for short). Pursuant thereto, they had started raising constructions onthe land. The Collector, Vadodara issued notice dated March 11, 1985 calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the constructions raised on the land should not be ordered to be removed under section 66 of the Code, as no N.A.permission was obtained under section 65 of the Code. The respondents filed reply to the said notice on March 30, 1985. The Collector by his order dated 27/06/1986 directed the respondents to remove the constructions made on the disputed land and eviction of the respondents there-from. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred revision before the State Government under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The revision came to be rejected vide order dated 12/02/1988. Therefore, the respondents moved the High Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 2264/88 and prayed the Court to set aside the above referred to two orders. The learned Single Judge took the view that as the respondents had obtained building permission under section 29 of the Act, it was not necessary for them to obtain N.A.Permission under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition by judgment dated 28/06/1996, which has given rise to the present appeal.

(3.) We may state that similar view was expressed by the learned Single Judge in several other matters and the judgments rendered in some of the matters were subjected to appeal. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 151/96 arising out of Special Civil Application No. 7735/95, Division Bench had passed following order on 30/10/1996 :-