Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 944 (GUJ)

Muralidar Thakumal Shadadpuri v. State of Gujarat

2018-08-02

A.J.DESAI

body2018
JUDGMENT A.J. DESAI, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner initially challenged the order/communication dated 15.06.2013 issued by the Deputy Estate Officer, North Zone, Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, by which, a 'Rajachitthi' dated 03.02.2012 granted in favour of the petitioner to construct as per its plan was suspended and was further restrained not to construct the property on the ground that from the property card, it was found that the original allottee, from whom, the petitioner had purchased the property, has breached certain terms and conditions. 2. Initially, the following prayers were prayed : "[A] Your Lordships may be leased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to declare and hold the impugned action of suspecting Commencement Certificate, Rajachitti No. 258,42/110112/B2918/RO/MI dated 3.2.2012, is illegal, without authority of law, unconstitutional and violative of Arts. 14 & 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore, the same is quashed and set aside; [B] Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 15.06.2013 of suspending Commencement Certificate, Rajachitti No. 258,42/110112/B2918/RO/MI dated 3.2.2012; [C] Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para C; [D] Your Lordships be pleased to pass any other and further order as may be deemed fit in favour of the petitioners. [E] Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 07.09.2013; [F] Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned notice dated 07.09.2013. 3. A notice came to be issued by an oral order dated 11.09.2013 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, pursuant to which, the respondent authorities appeared through respective advocates. An affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the State of Gujarat through City Deputy Collector (East), Ahmedabad filed and opposed grant of any relief, as prayed for. 4. 3. A notice came to be issued by an oral order dated 11.09.2013 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, pursuant to which, the respondent authorities appeared through respective advocates. An affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the State of Gujarat through City Deputy Collector (East), Ahmedabad filed and opposed grant of any relief, as prayed for. 4. The matter was heard by this Court on 13.01.2014 and after considering the material available on record on that date, passed the interim order and observed in Para 12, which reads as under: "12.0 I have also considered the balance of convenience particularly when the petitioner is ready and willing to show his readiness and willingness to file undertaking as stated hereinabove to pay any fees/charges for change of use without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Hence, following order is passed:" The petitioner is permitted to carry out his construction work according to the plans sanctioned by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on filing another undertaking to the effect that the construction shall be subject to the decision of the Collector for permission of change of use of land for residential premises. Such undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner within a period of one week from today. Such undertaking shall be handed over to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Collector, Ahmedabad. The petitioner shall approach the Collector, Ahmedabad within a period of two weeks from today pursuant to the notice dated 07.09.2013 though issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation since the dispute about change of use can only be decided by the Collector. 5. A representation/an application was made by the petitioner to the City Deputy Collector. After having heard the petitioner and considering the documents in connection with the land in dispute, the City Deputy Collector passed an order dated 30.03.2016 holding that since it is found that the original allottee of the land has committed breach of the conditions of the allotment order by way of transferring the land without prior permission as well as change of use, for which, the land was granted, the proceedings under Section 79(A) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (herein after referred to as 'the Revenue Code' for short) is required to be initiated. 6. 6. Having received the order, the petitioner preferred civil application being Civil Application No. 3627 of 2016 (Now Civil Application No. 2 of 2016) requesting this Court to amend the petition as well as the prayer clause. The said civil application came to be allowed and following prayers were amended. "[G] Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of Ld. District Collector, Ahmedabad dated 30.03.2016; [H] Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to issue BU permission for subjected premises within stipulated time; [I] Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Collector, Ahmedabad." 7. During pendency of this petition, the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder and several affidavits-in-reply have been filed by the respondent Deputy Collector and affidavits-inrejoinder thereto have been filed by the petitioner. 8. The brief facts arise from the record are as under : 8.1 That a piece of land admeasuring 754 sq. yards. of Survey No. 116 paiki of Sardarnagar Township was granted in favour of one Dr. K.K. Chawla for constructing the hospital and/or clinic at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. mtrs. under Rule 43(D) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, (herein after referred to as 'the Revenue Rules' for short) by the District Collector, Ahmedabad on 30.09.1975 by imposing certain terms and conditions referred therein. Thereafter, by another order dated 25.02.1976, additional land admeasuring 129.6 sq. yards granted by the District Collector to Dr.K.K.Chawla at the same rate i.e. Rs. 30/- per sq. mtrs. as well as on the same terms and conditions. 8.2 As per the above two orders, a Deed of Conveyance was executed on 31.07.1980 by the Administrator of Sardarnagar Township, Ahmedabad for the aforesaid two pieces of land, as per the Appendix XXIV of the Displaced Persons (Compensations and Rehabilitations) Rules, 1955, however, certain portions were scored off in the said Deed of Conveyance. 8.3 Dr.K.K.Chawla, who was allotted the said land by the State of Gujarat, sold the land by a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 29.01.2011 by accepting the market value of the land. 8.3 Dr.K.K.Chawla, who was allotted the said land by the State of Gujarat, sold the land by a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 29.01.2011 by accepting the market value of the land. 8.4 The petitioner, thereafter, submitted 'building plans' before the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for construction of apartments as well as shops on the said land and sought for permission to construct upon the land. The permission, as sought for by the petitioner, was granted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and therefore, the petitioner started the construction upon the land. During construction, by an order/communication dated 15.06.2013, the petitioner was restrained to carry on further construction and implementation of 'Rajachiththi' granted in favour of the petitioner was stayed and therefore, as stated in the beginning, the petition came to be filed. And thereafter amending the prayer clauses, by raising several contentions requested to issue appropriate writ, directions and/or order. 9. Mr.S.H.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.N.V.Gandhi learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the corporation has no authority to suspend the 'Rajachitthi', once it is granted and that too, at the instance of another authority i.e. Deputy Estate Officer, North Zone, Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad and when no proceedings were initiated by the revenue authority for alleged breach of so-called terms and conditions referred in the original allotment order. He would further submit that the sale certificate dated 31.07.1980 (Deed of Conveyance) issued in favour of Dr.K.K.Chawla is an outright sale in his favour since no conditions in the said sale certificate are re-produced. In absence of such conditions in the said sale certificate, the petitioner sought for title clearance certificate and by relying upon the said sale certificate, the title clearance certificates were issued by two advocates and therefore, on the basis of the title clearance certificates issued by the advocates, the petitioner had purchased the property by paying the market value to Dr.K.K.Chawla. He would further submit that even the loan was sanctioned in the favour of the petitioner for developing the land in question by the Citibank and accordingly, the petitioner had availed the loan and started the construction upon the said land. 10. He would further submit that even the loan was sanctioned in the favour of the petitioner for developing the land in question by the Citibank and accordingly, the petitioner had availed the loan and started the construction upon the said land. 10. He would further submit that when the petitioner submitted the plans for construction upon the said land along with all necessary documents before the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, the Corporation, after examining the same, had issued the 'Rajachitthi' on 03.02.2012 and accordingly, construction was commenced. He would submit that Section 29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the T.P. Act' for short) empowers the appropriate authority (herein 'Municipal Corporation') to grant or refuse any permission for development of the property. Once such permission is granted, the concerned authority can stop further progress of works only if it is found that a person, who has been granted permission for development of the property, has committed breach of any provision of Sections 27 or 28 of the T.P.Act itself, which is not the case herein. He, therefore, would submit that the Municipal Corporation ought not to have passed the impugned order, by which, the 'Rajachithhi' is suspended and simultaneously, further construction was stopped. The Municipal Corporation is an independent authority and is a competent to decide the issue with regard to its own jurisdiction and therefore, the revenue authority's official like the Deputy Collector cannot indirectly interfere by raising unreasonable and illegal issue. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision in case of reported in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1970) AIR SC 1498 and reported in Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, State Government, (1991) 1 GLR 113 and would submit that appropriate orders are required to be passed in the matter. 11. He would further submit that this Court, while passing an interim order dated 31.01.2014, did permit the petitioner to construct and finish the same and accordingly, the petitioner completed the construction upon the land. 12. By taking me through the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980, Mr. 11. He would further submit that this Court, while passing an interim order dated 31.01.2014, did permit the petitioner to construct and finish the same and accordingly, the petitioner completed the construction upon the land. 12. By taking me through the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980, Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the sale certificate is issued under the provision of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Rules, 1955, and therefore, the land in dispute is required to be treated as if the same is granted by the Collector under the provision of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Act, 1954. Dr.K.K.Chawla was granted the land as a displaced person and since, he had paid the full price of the land in one installment under Rule 43(C) of the Revenue Rules, the restrictions to sell such land etc. shall remain applicable only for a period of 11 years from the date of the sale. He would further submit that in the present case, the Deed of Conveyance was executed on 31.07.1980, whereas, the land was purchased by the present petitioner in the year 2011 i.e. after around 30 years and therefore, the case put forward by the State of Gujarat as if the land was restricted land and was granted to Dr.K.K.Chawla on the certain terms and conditions, the same may not be accepted. He would submit that referring two orders in the Deed of Conveyance, by which, the land was allotted to Dr.K.K.Chawla, are not sufficient and cannot be treated as if the same was incorporated in the said sale certificate. Mr.Sanjanwala, learned Senior advocate, would submit that subsequent to interim order passed by this Court in the year 2014, the petitioner did approach the Deputy Collector and raised all these contentions. However, the petitioner had shown his ready and willingness to pay the premium as if there is a change of use of property i.e. not constructing any hospital but constructing residential apartments and certain shops for the commercial purpose. By taking me through the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the District Collector, which has been passed after hearing to all concerned, he would submit that the District Collector has committed grave error in treating the petitioner as if he is an encroacher upon the said land. By taking me through the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the District Collector, which has been passed after hearing to all concerned, he would submit that the District Collector has committed grave error in treating the petitioner as if he is an encroacher upon the said land. He would further submit that the Collector has misread the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 treating the land as if the same was restricted land. He would submit that when the State of Gujarat entered into the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 with Dr.K.K.Chawla, it was the duty of the concerned authority to incorporate all the conditions, if that was the intention. It was reiterated that the entire consideration was paid by Dr.K.K.Chawla at one instance, the District Collector ought not to have treated the land as if the same was granted under Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Rules. He would submit that the impugned order, therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. The District Collector has committed grave error by observing that the State of Gujarat can regularize the construction by paying the price at 2.5 time more of market rate. He would further submit that in past, the District Collector himself has regularized the land of Dr.K.K.Chawla, by an order dated 31.07.1980, by charging Rs. 7.50/- per sq. mtrs. for change of use, and therefore, the petitioner should have been treated like Dr.K.K.Chawla the original allottee. 13. By taking me through an order/communication dated 17.02.1982 issued by the administrator of Sardarnagar Township, Ahmedabad, which is produced along with Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 preferred in the present petition, Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate, would submit that the administrator himself had permitted Dr.K.K.Chawla to construct the residence as well as hospital and/or clinic upon the land and therefore, he had permitted the change of use, which was restricted to only construction of the hospital and/or clinic. He, therefore, would submit that the land, which has been purchased by the petitioner from Dr.K.K.Chawla, would get the same right, title and interest over the property of his predecessor and therefore, the observations of the District Collector that the petitioner had committed breach of conditions by changing use of the land is required to be discarded. He, therefore, would submit that the land, which has been purchased by the petitioner from Dr.K.K.Chawla, would get the same right, title and interest over the property of his predecessor and therefore, the observations of the District Collector that the petitioner had committed breach of conditions by changing use of the land is required to be discarded. He would submit that since the petitioner had purchased the land having no such conditions and has made construction upon the land in accordance with the provisions of the GPMC Act, he is not liable to pay any type of premium as claimed by the respondent State of Gujarat. Alternatively, by taking me through an affidavit dated 11.07.2018 filed by the Additional Collector, he would further submit that so far as the calculation for payment of premium is concerned, the same is not applicable in view of the non-applicability of the Government Resolution relied upon by the State of Gujarat. He, therefore, would submit that as per the market value, no correct calculation has been made. 14. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate, would submit that several officer from the Revenue Department have opined that Dr.K.K.Chawala had become absolute owner of the land and therefore, he has not committed any alleged breach of conditions, which is required to be kept in mind and ought to have been examined by the District Collector. 15. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate, would submit the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1980, relied upon by the State of Gujarat, is not applicable treating the petitioner as an encroacher upon the land since the land has not been confiscated yet on the ground of breach of any conditions by Dr.K.K.Chawla original allottee. He would submit that though the land is purchased by the petitioner way back in the year 2011 by a registered sale deed, no proceedings under the Revenue Code have been initiated till the petition was filed or thereafter also. However, while passing the order on 30.03.2016, it is observed that the proceedings are required to be initiated but, till today, no such proceedings have been initiated by the authority. He, therefore, would submit that the petitioner cannot be treated as an encroacher upon the land and therefore, the premium sought to be charged at the rate of 2.5 times more of the market rate would not be applicable. He, therefore, would submit that the petitioner cannot be treated as an encroacher upon the land and therefore, the premium sought to be charged at the rate of 2.5 times more of the market rate would not be applicable. He, therefore, would submit that the calculation of premium to the tune of more than Rs. 8 Crores is much more than the value of the land itself and therefore, the high handed action on the part of the Collector to impose penalty 2.5 times more of the market rate demanded at the instance of the respondent State of Gujarat, is required to be quashed and set aside. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be allowed in terms of prayers made in the petition. 16. On the other hand, Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Gujarat, has vehemently submitted that the contentions put forward by the petitioner having become absolute owner have no foundation in view of legal provisions as well as the orders passed by the State of Gujarat in the year 1975-1976 as well as the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980, by which, the land was allotted to Dr.K.K.Chawla. She would submit that an application was submitted by Mr.K.K.Chawla to allot a piece of land in Sardarnagar Township, Ahmedabad. The State of Gujarat issued yadi on 13.05.1975 resolving the grant of land in favour of Dr.K.K.Chawla. Accordingly, an order was passed by the Collector on 30.09.1975. By taking me through the said order, she would submit that the land was granted by the Collector exercising the powers under Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Rules on certain terms and conditions. The land was granted for the purpose of only and only of construction of hospital and/or clinic and he would not change the use of the land without prior permission of the Collector. The price of the land was fixed at Rs. 30/- per sq. mtrs. was one of the conditions and the second condition referred in the said order that the grant of the land would be subject to the terms and conditions imposed in the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1947. The said resolution deals with the conditions, which would be binding to a person, in whose favour, the land was granted, and therefore, all the conditions referred therein would be binding to Dr.K.K.Chawla. The said resolution deals with the conditions, which would be binding to a person, in whose favour, the land was granted, and therefore, all the conditions referred therein would be binding to Dr.K.K.Chawla. She would submit that it was made clear that an agreement shall be executed in a prescribed form. It was further made clear that by imposing conditions that if any of the mandatory conditions referred in the order is found to be breached, then, appropriate proceedings under the Revenue Code shall be initiated against the allottee. By the said order, the land admeasuring 754 sq. yards. was granted to Dr.K.K.Chawla and when Dr.K.K.Chawla applied for another piece of land, another order was passed on 25.02.1976 granting the land admeasuring 129.6 sq. yards, wherein, earlier order was also referred stating that all the conditions referred therein would be applicable for the said piece of land also. 17. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the order has been passed by the Collector under Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Rules, which empowers the revenue authority to grant the land for industrial purpose or for other non-residential purpose in the new townships, colonies and areas earmarked for displaced persons. The land was only granted to Dr.K.K.Chawla under Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Rules. When the land was not granted under Rule 43(C) of the Revenue Rules, there is no question of applicability of Rule 43(C)(V) of the Revenue Rules as claimed by the petitioner i.e. embargo of 11 years. She would further submit that since the property was granted under Rule 43(D) of the Rules, the authority was empowered to impose conditions referred in Form HHH-1, which is ordinarily be issued under Rule 43(C) of the Rules. However, it is provided Sub Rule(2) of 43(D) of the Rules that the Collector may annexe such additional conditions, to omit, or vary from such of the conditions, in the agreements as he thinks fit. As the first order dated 30.09.1975 was issued, appropriate conditions imposed in addition to altering the certain conditions referred in Form HHH-1. She would submit that the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 cannot be treated as an absolute sale by the State of Gujarat in favour of Dr.K.K.Chawla since certain portion of the said Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 has been scored off. She would submit that the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 cannot be treated as an absolute sale by the State of Gujarat in favour of Dr.K.K.Chawla since certain portion of the said Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 has been scored off. She would further submit that Rule 91(8) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Rules, 1955 has been scored off and therefore the same is not applicable to the petitioner. Similarly, it has been referred in the said document that though the Vendor was in seize and possession of the land, however, with regard to the premises described in Schedule 1 in the said Deed of Conveyance. She would further submit that the Schedule suggests the boundary, however, the same is scored off and the size of the land was referred and both the orders dated 30.09.1975 and 25.02.1976 have been incorporated, by which, the land was allotted to Dr.K.K.Chawla and therefore, the conditions incorporated in the order had become the part of the Deed of Conveyance and therefore, Dr.K.K.Chawla was bound to obey the conditions. She, therefore, would submit that when Dr.K.K.Chawla was restrained from transferring the property as well as restrained from change of use as per the conditions, he ought not to have sold the land in breach of such conditions. She would further submit that from the allotment order itself, it is made clear that though the land was granted to Dr.K.K.Chawla as a displaced person, the same would be subject to the conditions, which may be imposed, provided under Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Rules. She would further submit that Dr.K.K.Chawla had become the absolute owner of the land but on the terms and conditions referred in the Deed of Conveyance. She would further submit that the land was granted to Dr.K.K.Chawla on a concessional rate being a displaced person, so that he can initially construct the hospital and/or clinic, however, subsequently modified to the extent only for his own residence and clinic but, the land was not permitted to sell and to earn profit out of the land granted to Dr.K.K.Chawla considering the present status as well as market value of the land. She would further submit that the interpretation sought to be advanced by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate that Dr. She would further submit that the interpretation sought to be advanced by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate that Dr. K.K.Chawla was granted the land for residential purpose and accordingly, the petitioner has made construction upon the land for residential purpose, is required to be discarded since the permission was granted to construct the residence for use of Mr.K.K.Chawla only and not for constructing the residential apartments through another person by selling the said land in open market to earn profit as well as to construct the commercial building like shops etc. As far as the order passed by the Municipal Corporation is concerned, she would further submit that after verification of the property card, the Municipal Corporation found that there are some terms and conditions imposed by the impugned order. She would further submit that several City Superintendents might have opined about the ownership of Dr.K.K.Chawla but there are contradictions in the opinions of the different officers, which would not be binding to the State of Gujarat and particularly, when the allotment orders and Deed of Conveyance are self explanatory. 18. As far as the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Collector, by which, he has made certain observations and has asked the concerned officers to initiate the proceedings under Section 79(A)(b) of the Revenue Code is concerned, she would submit that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the order, he can challenge the same before the State of Gujarat by way of filing appeal/revision under the Revenue Code. She would submit that however, the Collector has examined all the materials placed before it and has rightly come to conclusion that the land was of new tenure and of restricted nature and when it is found that the original allottee has committed breach of conditions by selling the land for profit, the sale itself is illegal and therefore, the proceedings is required to be initiated for confiscation of the land. She would further submit that there are two types of breach of conditions in the present case, one is the sale of the land without prior permission of the Collector and second is change of use of the land without prior permission of the Collector. She would further submit that there are two types of breach of conditions in the present case, one is the sale of the land without prior permission of the Collector and second is change of use of the land without prior permission of the Collector. She would submit that the rate for premium as provided under Notification dated 08.01.1980 (at the rate of 2.5 time) of the market rate is correct finding and does not call for any interference of this Court. She, therefore, would submit that the present petition may be dismissed. 19. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the documents produced on record along with the petition, affidavit-in-reply and affidavit-in-rejoinder and also the civil application filed in the present proceedings. It is an undisputed fact that the pursuant to the application submitted by Dr.K.K.Chawla, who has applied as a displaced person, was initially granted the piece of land admeasuring 754 sq. yards. on 30.09.1975. The said order specifically refers that the land is being allotted under Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Rules by imposing several conditions i.e. (1) The land was granted at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. mtrs. (2) The land shall be used only and only for hospital and/or clinic and allottee would not be permitted to use the land for any other purpose without prior permission, (3) It is not regular grant of land but subject to Government Notification/Resolution dated 17.10.1947. Condition No. 2(iii) of the Notification/Resolution dated 17.10.1947 reads as under : "(iii) in all cases, the sales or leases on concessional terms or without auction contemplated in (c) in paragraph 1 above, the grantee should invariably be made to give a binding inter-alia in the following terms :- "the said land has been granted to me (the grantee) subject to the condition that I, my heir, executors, administrators and approved assigns will not at any time lease, mortgage sell or otherwise howsoever encumber the said land or any portion thereof without the previous written sanction of Government." 20. It is an undisputed fact that the land was not granted in any auction and therefore, granting of the land, grantee as well as his heirs or administrator were restrained not to lease, mortgage, sell etc. of the land or any portion thereof without previous sanction of the Collector. It is an undisputed fact that the land was not granted in any auction and therefore, granting of the land, grantee as well as his heirs or administrator were restrained not to lease, mortgage, sell etc. of the land or any portion thereof without previous sanction of the Collector. According to Condition No. 4, prior permission was required before putting construction upon the land. Condition No. 5 was to pay the entire amount within a period of four months. Condition No. 6 was imposed that the agreement shall be executed in proper form. Condition No. 7 made it clear to the allottee Dr.K.K.Chawla that if he commits any breach of conditions, appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against him under the Revenue Code. Condition No. 8 was imposed that he shall start construction within a period of six months and the shall complete within a period of two years. Condition No. 9 that if he does not pay the amount within a period of three months, the agreement shall be automatically treated cancel and the possession shall be taken back by the State of Gujarat. Similar rate was also applied while allotting additional land admeasuring 129.6 sq. yards, however, it was specifically stated that the land is being sold on the same terms and conditions referred in earlier allotment order dated 30.09.1975. 21. When the Deed of Conveyance was executed, the same was executed as per Appendix - XXIV, which is being executed at the instance of the said authorities, when the land is being sold, otherwise than pursuant to any public auction, on 31.01.1980. If the original Deed of Conveyance, which is produced by the State of Gujarat, is perused, certain parts are scored off and the same is not disputed. Rule 91(8) on the top of the Deed of Conveyance has been scored off, which pertains to Rule 91(8) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Rules, 1955, which prescribed procedure. Rule 91(8) is with regard to property purchased in auction and therefore, it is clear that the property was not purchased by Dr.K.K.Chawla in auction. 22. It appears from the said document that total price of the land in dispute was to the tune of Rs. 26,520/-, which was paid by Dr.K.K.Chawla. Rule 91(8) is with regard to property purchased in auction and therefore, it is clear that the property was not purchased by Dr.K.K.Chawla in auction. 22. It appears from the said document that total price of the land in dispute was to the tune of Rs. 26,520/-, which was paid by Dr.K.K.Chawla. Para - 2 or 3 of the Deed of Conveyance reads as under : WHEREAS the Vendor is seized and possessed of the land, hereditaments and premises more particularly described in Schedule I, hereunder written AND WHEREAS the Vendor has agreed with the Purchaser for the absolute sale to him of the said land, hereditaments and premises intended to be hereby granted at or for the price of Rs. 26520.00 paid to the Vendor by the Purchaser (Rs.26,520/- in cash and by adjustments against he compensation payable under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Act, 1954 to the Purchaser and his associates, whose names are given in Schedule II hereunder written on or before the execution of these presents the receipt whereof the Vendor doth hereby admit and acknowledge, and from the same doth hereby release the purchaser and whereas the said associates have agreed to the property being granted, released, conveyed and assured upto the Purchased, the Vender doth in pursuance of rule ......... of the rules framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Act, 1954 hereby granted, release, convey and assure unto the Purchaser all that piece and parcel of land, hereditaments, and premises known as Out of CTS No. 116, Sardarnagar, Ahemdabad more particularly described in Schedule I hereunder written TOGETHER WITH all buildings,. of the rules framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Act, 1954 hereby granted, release, convey and assure unto the Purchaser all that piece and parcel of land, hereditaments, and premises known as Out of CTS No. 116, Sardarnagar, Ahemdabad more particularly described in Schedule I hereunder written TOGETHER WITH all buildings,. Commons, fences, hedges, ditches, ways, waters, water-courses, liberties, privileges, easements and appurtenance whatsoever to the said piece or parcel of land belonging or in any way appertaining or usually held or enjoyed there with or reputed to belong or be appurtenant thereto AND ALL THE ESTATE, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Vendor into and upon the said premises and every party thereof EXCEPTING AND RESERVING to the Vendor all minds and minerals of whatever nature lie to in or under the said premises together with full liberty at all times for the Vendor, his agents and workmen to enter upon all or any part of the said premises, to search for, make merchantable and carry away the said mines and minerals under or upon the said premises or any adjoining lands of the Vendor and to let down the surface of all or any part of the said premises and any building standing thereon and hereafter to be erected thereon, making fair compensation to the purchaser for damage done thereby TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said land, hereditaments and premises hereby granted, released, conveyed and assured or expressed so to be, unto and to the use of the Purchaser subject to nevertheless to the payment of such land revenue, cesses and taxes as are may be assessed or imposed on the said premises and the Vendor doth hereby covenant with the Purchaser that he has not done anything or suffered anything to be done where by the said premises are in any way encumbered or affected AND THAT the purchaser shall and may at all times hereafter peaceably and quietly possess and enjoy the said land, hereditaments and premises and receive the rents and profit thereof without any lawful eviction, interruption, claim or demand whatsoever from or by the Vender or any person or persons lawfully or equitably claiming from, under, or in trust for him. AND FURTHER THAT, HE THE VENDER and all persons having or lawfully or equitably claiming any estate or interest in the said land, hereditaments and premises, or any of them or any part thereof, from, under or in trust for him the Vendor shall and will from time to time, and at all times hereafter, at the request and cost of the Purchaser do or execute, or cause to be done and executed, all such acts, deeds and things whatsoever for further and more perfectly assuring the said land, hereditaments and premises, and every part thereof, unto and to the use of the Purchaser, in manner aforesaid, as shall or may be reasonbaly required." If Schedule - 1 is perused, the portion showing boundary is scored off. However, following paragraphs is referred therein. SCHEDULE I All that piece or parcel of land and/or building(s) situated at out of CTS No. 116 Sardarnagar containing by admesurement 754.00 sq. yards + 129.06 sq. yards = Total 883.6 sq. yards. On the North by ... (1) Collector of Ahmedabad order On the South by ... No.RHB/CTS/216 dt.30.9.75 On the East by ... (2) Collector of Ahmedabad, order On the West by ... No.RHB/CTS/116 dt.25.2.76 23. From the reflection of the two orders in the Deed of Conveyance, which was binding to Dr.K.K.Chawla, by which, the State of Gujarat, while exercising its powers under Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Rules, had imposed certain conditions when the land is of new tenure and of having restricted in nature. When Dr.K.K.Chawla was aware about the conditions and had become the owner of the property subject to the conditions, he cannot be treated as an absolute owner of the land. If Dr.K.K.Chawla intended to sell the land, he could have sought prior permission from the Collector/State of Gujarat. When the original owner allottee himself was not absolute owner of the land, the subsequent purchaser cannot be treated as an absolute owner by interpreting the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 as submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 24. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the sale of the land in question of Dr. 24. The contention on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the sale of the land in question of Dr. K.K.Chwla, vide Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1970 is absolute; does not merit acceptance considering the fact that both the orders passed by the Collector dated 30.09.1975 and 25.02.1976, have been categorically incorporated in the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 and thus, applying the principle laid down in the decision of this Court in the case of reported in Harjivan P. Thanki Vs. State of Gujarat, (1988) 2 GLR 1270 , leaves no room of doubt that both the orders dated 30.09.1975 and 25.02.1976 become part and parcel of the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the sale in favour of Dr.K.K.Chawla was absolute. 25. It is presumed that when a buyer intends to purchase the immovable property, he would examine the necessary documents with regard to the ownership of the property, and then, would invest in it for development. Opinion of the advocates with regard to the title clearance certificate is not binding to anybody. Therefore, in my opinion, when the petitioner intended to purchase the land, it is presumed that he had perused the Deed of Conveyance dated 31.07.1980 and he was aware about the two allotment orders dated 30.09.1975 and 25.02.1976 referred therein. It is also presumed that the petitioner has gone through both the orders, which are self explanatory. It is presumed that the petitioner was aware that the original order dated 30.09.1975 passed under Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Rules, which also incorporates the Notification dated 17.10.1947 and therefore, the case put forward by the petitioner that Dr.K.K.Chawla was granted the land as a displaced person under Rule 43(C) of the Revenue Rules and therefore, Dr.K.K.Chawla has not committed any breach cannot be accepted. It is well settled principle of law that, whatever, the right, title and interest, a person is having over the property, would pass the same to the subsequent owner. When Dr.K.K.Chawla himself was owning the property on certain terms and conditions, the same terms and conditions would bind to the purchaser i.e. the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by Mr. When Dr.K.K.Chawla himself was owning the property on certain terms and conditions, the same terms and conditions would bind to the purchaser i.e. the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner was the absolute owner of the land since the land was granted under Rule 43(C) of the Rules is hereby declined. As far as interim order passed by this Court is concerned, at the relevant time, the petitioner had agreed that he would approach the Collector for passing appropriate orders with regard to the land in dispute and accordingly, the Court had permitted to construct upon the land in dispute that was subject to outcome of this petition. 26. As far as the submission made by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate that in past, the District Collector himself has regularized the land of Dr.K.K.Chawla, by an order dated 31.07.1980, by charging Rs. 7.50/- per sq. mtrs. for change of use, and therefore, the petitioner should have been treated like Dr.K.K.Chawla the original allottee is concerned, the same cannot be accepted as the encroachment upon a road/strip adjoining his tenement and the same was regularized pursuant to the policy laid down in the communication dated 12.7.1973 of the State Government addressed to the Collector, Ahmedabad as well as the memorandum dated 11.10.1973. However, the provisions laid down in the said communication and memorandum are not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, as aforesaid, the grant of land was under the provisions of Rule 43(D) of the Revenue Code. 27. As far as change of use is concerned, the submission made by Mr. Sanjanwala learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that change of use was granted in favour of Dr.K.K.Chawla in the year 1982, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner has not constructed any house for himself but constructed number of apartments to sell the property to earn profit as well as constructed several shops on the ground floors having much more market value than residential premises. Even otherwise, it is needless to say that the interim orders are passed considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at that stage and such interim orders would merge in the order/judgment passed by the Court subsequent to finally hearing of the matter. 28. Even otherwise, it is needless to say that the interim orders are passed considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at that stage and such interim orders would merge in the order/judgment passed by the Court subsequent to finally hearing of the matter. 28. As far as submissions made by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate that the administrator, by order dated 17.02.1982, has permitted to Dr.K.K.Chawla to use the same land for residence as well as hospital/clinic, Dr.K.K.Chawla could have used the land for residential purpose and when he has sold the land to the petitioner for constructing the residential premises, would not change the purpose as alleged by the Collector cannot be accepted since the administrator has granted only Dr.K.K.Chawla to use for only his own residence and therefore, even could not have himself constructed or developed the land for earning the profit by putting construction of residential apartments/shops. 29. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate, did submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 Crore before this Court and had also shown ready and willingness not to sell four apartments while insisting for hearing of Civil Misc. Application No. 1 of 2018, which has been filed for getting BU permission subject to outcome of the petition, cannot be accepted, since the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties have already argued the matter in detail and the entire matter was heard by the Court. 30. As far as submission made by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate about the powers of Estate Officer suspending the operation of 'Rajachitthi' is concerned, if the officer is empowered to cancel such 'Rajachitthi' under Section 29 of the T.P.Act, in my opinion, he has all powers to suspend the implementation of the 'Rajachitthi' granted, if it is found that there is dispute about the title of the property and particularly, in the present case, it is found that the when property card discloses about the original orders passed about the allotment of the land to the original allottee. Hence, this submission also cannot be accepted. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find the petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Hence, this submission also cannot be accepted. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find the petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, considering the peculiar facts, circumstances and development in the matter and dealing with the submission whether the petitioner is an encroacher on the land or not, this Court would not like to decide the same at this stage on the ground that the land was purchased by the petitioner by a registered sale deed way back in the month of 2011, whereas, proceedings under the provisions of Section 79(A)(B) of the Revenue Code have been initiated in the year 2016 and are yet to be decided and the land is not confiscated by the State of Gujarat. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as learned AGP have relied upon the various Government Resolutions, which deal with rate and charges applicable when the person has either changed the use of the land or committed breach of any conditions etc. this Court would not like to decide the issue in this proceedings. In my opinion, that the petitioner has purchased the land in the year 2011 and has completed the construction upon the land and constructed the property having several apartments and shops are ready for sale, in my opinion, it would be desirable that the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat be directed to decide the charges of premium leviable in connection with the land considering about several aspects referred herein above. The Revenue Secretary, State of Gujarat, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall decide the price within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Order in Civil Applications : In view of the order passed in main petition, the present civil applications do not survive and accordingly, the same stands disposed of. Rule or notice, if any, is hereby discharged.