AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.G.Uraizee, J
Heard Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate for petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 - State.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by the Collector, Kutch, and order dated 29.07.2015 passed by respondent No.1 confirming the order of Collector, whereby the application dated 01.02.2016 submitted by the petitioner to the Collector, Bhuj, for grant of subject land came to be rejected.
While admitting the petition, following order was passed on 22.03.2017:
"Heard Mr. Ekrama H. Qureshi, learned advocate for the petitioner.
It is submitted that the order of the Collector that was challenged before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (SSRD) is a cryptic one and contains no reasons. The order of the SSRD, as well, does not contain any justifiable reason for the rejection of the revision application of the petitioner. It is submitted that the order of the Collector has been passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and neither is it reflected in the said order how, and in what manner, the application of the petitioner is not in consonance with the Government Resolutions mentioned therein.
On the other hand, Mr. V.R. Jani, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the land in question is government land and the petitioner has no right upon the same.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, issue Rule returnable on 10.07.2017.
Status-quo as it exists today, qua the land in question, shall be maintained till then."
Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate for the petitioner as is emerging from the order, has raised grievance that the Collector, Bhuj, has passed the order without assigning reasons and without affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that the order passed by the Authority below may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
It appears from the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by the Collector, Bhuj that he has rejected the application of the petitioner by short order that the application is not in consonance with two Resolutions of the Revenue Department. He has not elaborated as to how the application of the petitioner is not in consonance with the Resolutions of the Revenue Department. It is thus, eminently clear that the order of Collector is non-speaking order. It appears from the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Special Secretary that the Collector had passed the order on the basis of record available without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the prayer for remanding the matter to the respondent No.2 Collector, Bhuj, for fresh consideration needs to be accepted.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Collector, respondent No.2 as well as order dated 29.07.2016 passed by respondent No.1 are quashed and set aside and the matter is referred to respondent No.2 for a fresh consideration and to pass the speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.
It is clarified that this Court has not examined merits of the case and no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No cost. Protection granted by this Court to the petitioner is continued till respondent No.2 decides the matter in terms of this order. Direct service is permitted to respondent No.2.