AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners for appropriate directions to the respondents to handover the possession of the land bearing survey no. 247 admeasuring 6 acres at village Hadmatiya, taluka Talala. The short facts are that certain lands at village Hadmatiya was declared surplus land under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act which included the land in question. After the lands were declared as surplus land and land vested to the Government vide order dated 30.04.1995, the Deputy Collector allotted the land admeasuring 2 acres to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter, the requisite amount of Rs. 365 was paid and the copy of the challans are also produced at pages 15, 16 and 17. Thereafter, the possession was to be handed over on 06.07.1998 but actually, the possession was not handed over because the original holder of the land had raised litigation. As per the petitioner, the said litigation is also over and the possession of the surplus land is handed over by the original owner to the revenue authority and inspite of the same, the revenue authority had not handed over the possession to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
I have heard Mr. Parmar for the petitioners and Ms. Thakkar, learned AGP for the respondents.
As such, once the land is allotted and requisite amount is paid by the petitioner, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to handover the possession. It is not a case of the respondents nor it is brought to my notice that any prohibitory order is passed by any authority known to law against handing over of the possession of the land to the petitioners.
The learned AGP submits that she is not having any brief and she has no instruction as to whether possession is actually handed over or not after the interim order passed by this Court on 11.10.2000 whereby the revenue authorities were directed to handover the possession to the petitioner.
Whereas, Mr. Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioners state that as per the information received by him, possession is not handed over of the land in question till today.
If the possession is not handed over in spite of the fact that there is no prohibitory order of any authority known to law, the inaction on the part of the respondent authority cannot be countenanced. Once the requisite amount is paid and after the allotment of the land, it is obligatory on the part of the authority to handover the possession within reasonable time. The petition has remained pending for about more than 10 years and even after the interim order passed by this Court dated 11.10.2000, the possession has not been handed over.
Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to handover the possession of the land allotted to the petitioners bearing revenue survey no. 247 as early as possible not later than three months from the receipt of the order of this Court. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.