Jayantilal Jaychandbhai Shah Trustee vs State of Gujarat

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocates for the parties.

Rule. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, Rule is fixed forth with.

By way of this petition, the Petitioner has essentially assailed the order dated 14.2.2011 passed by Additional Secretary (Dispute), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, confirming the order of the Collect or dated 22.6.2006 and rejecting the Revision Application on the ground of pendency of the Civil suit and other reasons mentioned there under.

Learned advocate for the Petitioner has contended that the entire order indicate that as such the State has no objection but it is on account of pendency of the suit, it has decided not to consider the application for N.A.

Learned advocate appearing for Respondent No. 4 Shri Jinesh Kapadia for Shri Ashish H. Shah submitted that the Court if incline to remand the matter, may remand the matter on the ground that reconsideration of the Revision Application where under Respondent 4''scontention be permitted to be urged and he may be given an opportunity of being heard. The ground of pendency of the Civil Suit would not be urged on behalf of there spondent No. 4.

Learned AGP has submitted that in case if the Court is inclined to remand the matter, all the contentions being kept open by all the parties and the Secretary beat liberty to decide the same in accordance with law.

This Court is of the prima-facie opinion that when the State has not indicated clearly the denial of permission on any other ground and as it appears that permission is denied essentially on account of pendency of the Civil Suit in respect of the transfer of the land in question, the said pendency, in my view, cannot be said to be a valid and proper ground for denying the permission sought for by the Petitioner. However, incase, if the State has any other ground to deny the permission, the same cannot be denied in accordance with law but as the order dated 14.2.2011 does not disclose any other ground and the ground mentioned are the transfer of land contrary to the Resolution of the Committee also, in my view, would not entitle to the State to take up those grounds for denying the permission as the dispute between the two namely APMC and purchaser, is at large. The Court, therefore, need not opine on any other aspect and is inclined to remand the matter by quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.2.2011 on the short ground that the State can not deny permission only on account of pendency of Civil Suit between the parties without their exists no prohibitory order against such permission in favour of the original vendor APMC hereinabove.

In view of this, the order dated 14.2.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the authority and authority shall decide afresh in accordance with law and without being influence by the fact that Civil Suit exists between the parties. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The application be decided by the authority preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order after affording an opportunity to Respondent No. 4 and all concerned. The Court has not opined on any other aspect, except the aspects stated here in above. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service permitted.