Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 120 (GUJ)

Bharatkumar Macharam Khatri v. State of Gujarat

2019-02-12

A.J.DESAI

body2019
ORDER : 1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.5.2016 passed by learned Additional Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.6 of 2014. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to get repairing of the disturbed fencing surrounding the property and sought for a direction to the Nagarpalika - respondent No.3 to accept the property tax. 2. The short facts arise from the record are as under :- 2.1 By an order dated 28.3.1974 passed by Collector, Valsad, the petitioner was allotted land bearing Revenue Survey No.105/A-2 admeasuring 2968 Sq. Mts. At village Gandevi, Tal. Gandevi, Dist. Valsad to carry on small scale industry so that the tribal from the surrounding area can get employment. 2.2 The petitioner set up industry for production of electronic coils on the land in question. However, after some period, the petitioner stopped production. Hence, there was breach of terms and conditions of the allotment and hence, proceedings came to be initiated by the Collector and ultimately, the District Collector, Navsari passed an order on 2.5.2012 and held that there is a breach of terms and conditions as the project was closed since last 10 years and, therefore, the land in question was confiscated. The said order of the District Collector was challenged by the petitioner by way of Revision Application No.3 of 2012. The learned SSRD vide order dated 2.5.2013 remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh consideration. 2.3 In the remand proceedings, the Collector, after considering the material on record, held that there is a breach of conditions imposed while granting the land as since last more than 10 years, no manufacturing work is going on and the land is being encroached by nearby persons. Hence, the Collector, Navsari vide order dated 31.3.2014 dismissed the revision application of the petitioner and directed the Government to take possession of the land in question. 2.4 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.6 of 2014 before the learned SSRD. The learned SSRD by the impugned order dated 27.6.2016 upheld the order of the Collector dated 31.3.2014 and dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. 2.5 Hence the present petition. 3. Mr. 2.4 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.6 of 2014 before the learned SSRD. The learned SSRD by the impugned order dated 27.6.2016 upheld the order of the Collector dated 31.3.2014 and dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. 2.5 Hence the present petition. 3. Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that both the authorities below have gravely erred in deciding the case and in holding that since the Company to whom the coils were supplied by the petitioner is closed, the petitioner Company stopped manufacturing electric coils. He would further submit that specific contention was raised by the petitioner that the Company is manufacturing the electronic coils and supplying to different other Companies. He would further submit that part of the land has been granted which was allotted to the petitioner for running Urban Health Center, rest of the land was being used by the petitioner for the purpose for which it was granted. Hence, the impugned orders be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has opposed this petition and would submit that the petitioner has miserably failed in establishing his case that the petitioner is manufacturing electronic coils under small scale industry. He would further submit that the Collector while dismissing the revision application vide order dated 31.3.2014 has categorically observed that the petitioner has failed to produce any document with regard to manufacturing of the electronic coils and did not produce any details about the factory being in working condition and did not supply books of accounts of the Company for the last 10 years. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. Initially, the land was allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 1974. As per the said allotment order, the petitioner was required to follow certain conditions. It has been clearly stated in the allotment order that if it is found that there is a breach of conditions, the land would be confiscated. 6. In view of this background, the Collector has examined the case put forward by the petitioner. As per the said allotment order, the petitioner was required to follow certain conditions. It has been clearly stated in the allotment order that if it is found that there is a breach of conditions, the land would be confiscated. 6. In view of this background, the Collector has examined the case put forward by the petitioner. After considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, it has been held that there is no manufacturing activities going on of any items by the petitioner since last more than 10 years. No documentary evidence has been produced in support of the case put forward by the petitioner before the Collector or before the Revisional Authority or before this Court which would prima facie establish that the petitioner is carrying on any activities related to small scale industry. There is no material to establish that the petitioner has provided any employment to tribal since last 10 years and no books of accounts have been produced for a period of last 10 years. This aspect has also been considered by the revenue authorities. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.65 of 2013 which is pending in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge. 7. In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that since there are concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. V