AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.—This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10488/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the Appellant.
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Appeal can be summarised as under:
The Appellant was allotted a plot of land admeasuring 14,000 sq. meters under a grant made on 23rd April 1978 by the District Collector, Vadodara. The grant was made to develop small scale industries in the backward area of Chhota Udepur. Condition No. 5 of the grant would go to show that the grant was made for the grantee to setup an industry manufacturing articles of cement. It was not made for subletting or selling or inducting any third party. For any construction to be erected thereon, permission was to be obtained from the Collector, as per condition No. 4 of the terms of the grant. Any breach of this condition would lead to forfeiture of the land as per condition No. 13 of the terms of the grant.
The record reveals that it was reported to Deputy Collector, Chhota Udepur that the Appellant had transferred parcels of land to some third party and, therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to him on 10th June 1993. The notice specifically mentioned the name of one Kanubhai Ambalal Patel, a person to whom the land was transferred. The Deputy Collector initiated an inquiry in this regard, and the Appellant, in response to the show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Collector, accepted that on the land in question a company known as ''Sima Tiles'' is carrying on manufacturing of tiles. The Appellant accepted that ''Sima Tiles'' was running the factory on rent. In view of this particular position, as also putting up construction without necessary permission of the concerned authorities, the Deputy Collector proceeded to pass order on 29th March 1994 forfeiting the land to the Government.
Record reveals that an appeal was preferred before the Collector and the Collector confirmed that order vide order dated 10th October 1994. Being aggrieved by the said order, revision was preferred before the Revenue Secretary. The Revenue Secretary, after considering all relevant aspects, more particularly, the panchnama of the site indicating that the Appellant as original grantee was never seen on the concerned plot of land and had transferred the same illegally, confirmed the order of the Collector. However, the Revenue Secretary, while confirming the order passed by the Collector, observed that if the Appellant prefers an application for regularisation, it can be considered as per the existing rules.
Record reveals that instead of applying for regularisation, the Appellant challenged the order of the Collector as well as the Revenue Secretary by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4904/1997. The learned Single Judge of this Court (Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale, as he then was) vide order dated 9th July 1997 dismissed the petition observing as under:
...On the evidence on record, the Revenue Secretary confirmed the order passed by the Collector and thereafter has passed the second part of the order namely that if the Applicant applies for regularization, that could be considered as per existing rules. There is nothing wrong in making that observation and that is for the benefit of the Applicant. If the applicant does not want any regularization of the land in question, he has to vacate the plot as per order passed by the Collector which was otherwise confirmed by the Revenue Secretary.
For the reasons stated above, in my view, there is no error in the order passed by the authority below. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
Record further reveals that after the dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 4904/1997, the Appellant preferred an application dated 26th September 1997 before the Collector for regularization. Record further reveals that when the said application was pending before the Collector for consideration, the Circle Officer and the Talati of Chhota Udepur, after drawing the panchnama in presence of the panchas, took over the possession of the land in question on 18th November 2002. The land, thereafter, stood forfeiture with the Government. On 2nd August 2004, the Collector determined the price for the purpose of regularization and determined the amount on the basis of 50% of the market value, which came to Rs. 55,30,910=00. The Collector inquired with the Appellant whether he was ready and willing to deposit Rs. 55,30,910=00, which was 50% of the amount of the market value determined by the authorities. Instead of replying to this, the Appellant thought fit to challenge this order before the Special Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) on the premise that before determining the amount, the Appellant was not heard. The Special Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) remitted the matter to the Collector with a view to giving opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
Record reveals that when the Collector once again considered the matter upon remand, a report was put before the Collector by the authorities indicating that the land in question is open, there is no construction nor there are any articles and it is not even in occupation or possession of the Appellant. Accordingly, the Collector took the decision that there was no question now of regularising the illegality committed, and in any event, the Appellant was not ready and willing to deposit the amount which was fixed. The order of the Collector was challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) and the Special Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) also took the same view. Interestingly, the Appellant changed the entire stand before the Special Secretary, Revenue (Appeals). It appears that the Appellant submitted that regularization should be of the grant dated 23rd April 1978, meaning to say, that the value of the land be determined as that of the date of the grant.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent-State, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is warranted in this Appeal as we do not find any error, much less an error of law, said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition. We are of the view that the Appellant is not entitled to any relief.
It is apparent on the face of the record that after having agreed to abide by the terms of the grant, the Appellant committed gross violation of the terms of the grant; firstly, by transferring the land to a third party on rent and allowing the third party to use the land without any valid permission and secondly, in spite of the fact that opportunity was given by the Collector and this Court way back in the year 1997 to get the illegality regularised on certain terms and conditions, the same has not been availed of and the Appellant kept on challenging the orders one after another. In light of the facts that as on today the land is vacant, the Appellant is not in possession of the land and as observed by the learned Single Judge, there is nothing to show that the Appellant has paid any Government tax or any cess, no relief can be granted in favour of the Appellant.
In this view of the matter, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.