IBRAHIM ABDULHAQ CHHADAT vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Heard Mr. Naman Kinkhabwala, learned advocate for Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner.

In present petitioner, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set the illegal, illogical, arbitrary and discriminatory action / order / communication dated 19.1.2005 issued by the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Bharuch as the same is violative of the provisions of sections 65(1) R/w. Section 65(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the same is in breach of the Government Resolution dated 28.7.1989 and 20.9.1994 and therefore, the said communication / order be quashed and set aside.

(C) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold that the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Bharuch has no right or authority to insist the petitioner to resort to the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 65(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 for seeking N.A. Permission, which would be in breach of the provisions of Section 65(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and would be in breach of the aforesaid Government Resolution / Circulars.

(D) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the Taluka Development Officer, Bharuch to consider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 30.12.2004 and further be pleased to direct the Taluka Development Officer, Bharuch to immediately fix / determine the akar / premium for the land forming part of Block No.914 situated in Village Ikhar, Taluka Amod, District Bharuch admeasuring 4351 sq.mtrs. for residential use. (E) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold that District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Bharuch has no authority to consider or decide the application preferred by the petitioner dated 30.12.2004 considering the provisions of Section 65(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and in view of various Government Resolutions and be pleased to hold that except the Taluka Development Officer, District Development Officer, has no authority to deal with the subject matter / issue.

(F) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold that in view of the development permission granted by the Town Planning Officer, Bharuch there would not be necessity to obtain N.A. Permission as per the provisions of Section 65(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 so far as the land forming part of Block No.914 situated in mouje Ikhar, Taluka - Amod, District Bharuch, admeasuring 4351 Sq.Mtrs. which is sought to be used for N.A. purpose.

(G) Be pleased to grant interim relief and be pleased to direct the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Amod, District Bharuch to consider and decide the application dated 30.12.2004 and be pleased to direct the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Amod, District Bharuch to fix / determine the premium / akar in respect of the land forming part of mouje village Ikhar, Tal. Amod, District Bharuch admeasuring 4351 Sq.Mtrs. for residential purpose and decision may be ordered to be placed on record by way of interim relief.

(H) Be pleased to grant stay of execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 19.1.2005 issued by the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Bharuch by way of interim relief till the present petition is finally heard and decided by this Hon''ble Court.

So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner claims to be owner and occupier of land forming part Block No.914, admeasuring about 4351 sq. mtrs of land, situated at Village Ikhar, Taluka: Amod, District: Bharuch. The petitioner has also alleged in the petition that the petitioner intended to use the land for constructing house for residential purpose and, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application seeking development / Rajachitthi/ construction permission. It appears that initially the application was not submitted to the authority competent to examine and decide the application and, therefore, the application was returned to the petitioner with instruction to file it before appropriate authority. According to the petitioner, he ultimately filed the application before the District Development Officer who passed order dated 19.01.2005.

It further appears that after considering the application, the District Development Officer vide its communication dated 19.1.2005, informed the petitioner herein that in view of reorganisation of villages, the Status and the category of village where the land is situate has been altered and now there is no category D or E, necessary consequential modification in the Policy for granting such permission is under process, therefore, the application cannot be considered at this stage and would be considered when necessary policy decision after reorganisation of villages is taken. The communication dated 19.1.2005 also mentions that the petitioner will have to submit application with relevant and supporting documents. From the said statement in the communication dated 19.1.2005 it appears that the petitioner''s application was not accompanied by relevant and supporting documents.

In this view of the matter, the petitioner''s submission that the authority has rejected his application, cannot be accepted. The communication dated 19.1.2005 at Annexure "H" cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner''s application is rejected on merits. If the application was rejected on merits then the letter/ order would reflect the decision that the application is not granted. Whereas from the communication it becomes clear that the application is not rejected, in any case it is not rejected on merits and the authority has merely conveyed the petitioner to submit proper application with supporting documents to competent authority.

Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondents submitted that the competent authority to receive and decide such application will be District Panchayat.

In this view of the matter, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will submit fresh application to the District Panchayat.

Even otherwise the application which was submitted in 2004 has lost its efficacy and has outlived its life.

In the interregnum i.e. from 2004 to 2013, several policy decisions with regard to the procedure to be followed for processing development permission etc. have undergone substantial change and that, therefore, the application will have to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with Rule and policy prevailing as of now. Therefore also the petitioner should submit fresh application to the competent authority.

In this view of the matter and in light of the submission by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner would make appropriate fresh application with supporting documents, present petition is disposed of with observation that as and when the petitioner submits the application then the same may be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and applicable Rules and Policy, as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged.