Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 118 (GUJ)

Devchand Shankerbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2019-02-12

ANANT S.DAVE, BIREN VAISHNAV

body2019
JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the original petitioner on being aggrieved by the oral order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition. 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") approached the learned Single Judge with the following prayers: "(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside order/communication dated 28.03.2018 issued by the Chitnish to Collector, Banaskantha, Palanpur (Annexure-H) whereby request/representation of the petitioner came to be turned down and further be pleased to issue directions upon the concerned authorities to decide/reconsider the representation made by the petitioner dated 16.03.2018 and petitioner may be given the fullest opportunity of hearing/personal hearing and petitioner may be given an opportunity to defend his case and to point out the documentary evidence on record pertaining to the very first allotment of the land by the then Ruler of Palanpur State in the name of grandfather of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner the respondents - authorities may be directed to decide such representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and further be pleased to consider the request of the petitioner to re-grant the land in question. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside order/communication dated 28.03.2018 issued by the Chitnish to Collector, Banaskantha, Palanpur (Annexure-H) whereby request/representation of the petitioner came to be turned down and further be pleased to issue directions upon the concerned authorities to decide/reconsider the representation made by the petitioner dated 16.03.2018 and petitioner may be given the fullest opportunity of hearing/personal hearing and petitioner may be given an opportunity to defend his case and to point out the documentary evidence on record pertaining to the very first allotment of the land by the then Ruler of Palanpur State in the name of grandfather of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner the respondents-authorities may be directed to decide such representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and further be pleased to consider the request of the petitioner to re-grant the land in question." 3. Before the learned Single Judge, it was the case of the petitioner that land admeasuring 11000 square feet situated at Palanpur was allotted to the petitioner's grandfather by the erstwhile Ruler of Palanpur. The case of the petitioner was that despite the predecessors of the petitioner being in lawful possession, the land was allotted on 24.10.1994 in favour of the respondent no.3. 4. In the revenue proceedings, wherein the question of the mutation entry of the subject land was under a cloud, came to be decided in favour of the respondent No.3 by the order of the Deputy Collector dated 29.01.1996. 5. The challenge to the order at the behest of the petitioner's father failed inasmuch as the Chief Secretary (Dispute) Revenue dismissed the revision by an order dated 08.01.1999. The mother of the petitioner challenged the order of Application No. 6767 of 1995 seeking a direction not to sell, auction or transfer the land in question. This petition came to be withdrawn on 25.08.2005 with a liberty to make a representation. 6. The petitioner on 16.03.2018 made a representation to the Secretary, Revenue Department and to the Collector, Banaskantha that, as the land in question was originally of the petitioner's grandfather, the land be allotted to him and be so re-granted as the land to the respondent No.3, Banaskantha District Revenue Karmachari Mandal-III has remained barren and vacant. 6.1 By the order impugned in the petition dated 28.03.2008, the Collector passed an order that the petitioner's representation is rejected and the land cannot be re-granted. 7. Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant reiterated his sole submission, as made before the learned Single Judge. He submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the Collector while rejecting the representation. The authority, therefore, must be directed to decide the same afresh. 8. We have perused the orders of granting land to the respondent no.3 on 24.10.1994, the orders in favour of respondent No.3 dated 29.01.1996 of the Deputy Collector so confirmed in revision by the Revenue Department on 08.01.1999. These orders indicate that the petitioner's father lost in the year 1999 to challenge the revenue proceedings and failed to get the lands revenue/mutation entry in his favour. Such orders were not challenged by him. 8.1 The mother, in the year 2005, withdrew the petition which was filed praying for a declaration not to sell or transfer land. These orders indicate that the petitioner's father lost in the year 1999 to challenge the revenue proceedings and failed to get the lands revenue/mutation entry in his favour. Such orders were not challenged by him. 8.1 The mother, in the year 2005, withdrew the petition which was filed praying for a declaration not to sell or transfer land. Though the petition was withdrawn in 2005 with a view to make a representation, no such representation was made. 9. It is in background of such glaring facts where an allotment of land made in the year 1994 was sought to be resuscitated in the year 2018 after 25 years, was negated by the learned Single Judge by assigning the following reasons: "5. The Court having heard learned advocates finds that as rightly submitted by Ms. Thakore, from the subject land i.e. from land bearing city survey No. 13585, the Collector passed order dated 24.10.1994, for allotment in favour of respondent no.3. However, the mother of the petitioner filed petition being Special Civil Application No. 6767 of 1995, seeking direction not to sale, auction or transfer the subject land. Such petition, as stated above, was withdrawn with a view to make representation. It is not the case of the petitioner that immediately after the withdrawal of the petition, though the representation was made for allotment of the land no decision was taken thereon. However, the petitioner after long period of 22 years, made representation dated 16.03.2018, copy whereof is placed at Annexure-G for allotment of 11,000 sq. feet land of city survey no.13585. 6. The Court finds that such demand of the petitioner was rightly not accepted. After the grandfather of the petitioner lost right in the subject land, the father and the mother of the petitioner could not successfully pursue their remedy to get allotment of the subject land. Now after very long time, the petitioner could not be permitted to again ask for allotment of the land especially when the rights in the part of the land bearing city survey no. 13585, had accrued long back in favour of respondent no.3." 10. The facts narrated hereinabove speak for themselves. Now after very long time, the petitioner could not be permitted to again ask for allotment of the land especially when the rights in the part of the land bearing city survey no. 13585, had accrued long back in favour of respondent no.3." 10. The facts narrated hereinabove speak for themselves. An allotment made in favour of the respondent no.3 in 1994, stood the test of time as revenue proceedings under challenge at the hands of the appellant's father in 1999, cannot be reopened under the pretext of the re-grant at the hands of the petitioner in the year 2018, 24 years after the allotment and 22 years after even the mother had withdrawn the petition. 11. We see no reason to interfere in the oral order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, the Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2018 does not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly.