Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 239 (GUJ)

Nidhiben Bharatbhai Mori v. Mamlatdar

2025-03-07

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Sneha Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Panchal on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Nikunj Kanara on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners challenge orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 01.01.2025 in Appeal Application Nos. AA/687/2019, AA/689/2019, AA/682/2019 and AA/686/2019 more particularly whereby the GRT has rejected the applications for grant of interim relief. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Ms.Joshi and learned AGP Mr.Kanara, it would appear that the petitioners were conducting the activity of shrimp farming upon the lands in question and whereas, the petitioners were issued with notice under Section 79A of the Land Revenue Code by the Deputy Collector and whereas, after affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioners, the Deputy Collector, Khambhat has passed order dated 16.08.2018 more particularly holding that the petitioners were carrying out the activity of shrimp farming without taking appropriate permissions and therefore, the lands were directed to be vested with the State Government and whereas, the Mamlatdar, Tarapur was directed to take possession of the lands and submit appropriate report to the Deputy Collector. The petitioners having challenged the same before the GRT, vide the orders impugned, the GRT has refused the interim relief. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Ms.Joshi and learned AGP Mr.Kanara and having perused the documents on record, it would appear to this Court that while the Deputy Collector was considering two different sets of petitions, a common order has been passed i.e. to say that while one group of applications were with regard to lands which were being put to the use of shrimp farming where the usage of land itself may have been illegal more particularly since the lands had been allotted by the State Government to certain allottees for carrying out agricultural activities for the purpose of their sustenance and whereas, the said allottees, without any reference to the State Government or without taking any prior permission, have sold off their lands to the present petitioners and whereas, the petitioners were carrying on activities of shrimp farming on the said lands. 4.1. 4.1. The second group of applications were such where the lands in question were originally of unrestricted tenure and belonging to private owners and whereas, the petitioners had purchased the same and the lacuna being of the petitioners not having taken appropriate prior permission from the State Government for usage of the lands for shrimp farming which, according to the authorities, would be the non-agricultural activity. 4.2. Attention of this Court is also drawn by learned advocate Ms.Joshi to an application/communication dated 18.06.2018 by the petitioners whereby the petitioners had requested to grant some time to the petitioners for filing appropriate application before appropriate authorities for grant of appropriate permissions. Learned advocate Ms.Joshi in this regard would submit that the petitioners were under a mistaken impression that the activity of shrimp farming was an agricultural activity and it was under such circumstances that the petitioners had started the activity without taking prior permission of the State Government. It is also submitted that given appropriate time, the petitioners would file appropriate application before the Collector for grant of NA permission after paying premium and penalty as decided by the Collector. 5. Having regard to such a submission made by learned advocate and having considered the fact that the lands in question were originally lands of unrestricted tenure belonging to private ownership, to this Court, it would appear that the petitioners should be afforded one more opportunity to make appropriate application before the Collector under Section 67 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and whereas, till the time the application under Section 67 is decided and for a brief period of time thereafter, the petitioners should be appropriately protected. 6. Having regard to the above observations, to this Court, the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:- (i) The petitioners are at liberty to file application under Section 67 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code qua the lands in question for appropriate permissions within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) If such application is made within the timeline directed hereinabove, then the Collector shall consider the same within the statutory period. (ii) If such application is made within the timeline directed hereinabove, then the Collector shall consider the same within the statutory period. (iii) In case the Collector holds in favour of the petitioners and whereas, if such order is complied with, then the appeal itself before the GRT would become infructuous and on the other hand, in case the Collector decides against the present petitioners, then appropriate liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law. (iv) It is further directed that the GRT, upon being informed by way of an appropriate application as regards the petitioners having approached the Collector within the timeline stipulated by this Court as above, shall not continue further with hearing of the appeals in question and whereas, if such application is not submitted by the petitioners, then the GRT would be at liberty to continue with the appeal proceedings. (v) The GRT shall also, in case the petitioners submit such application as above, not finally decide the appeals till the Collector decides the application as aforesaid. (vi) The orders of the Deputy Collector, Khambhat dated 16.08.2018 in Breach of Condition Case Nos. 01/2018, 03/2018, 08/2018 and 07/2018 as well as the orders passed by the GRT dated 01.01.2025 in Appeal Application Nos. AA/687/2019, AA/689/2019, AA/682/2019 and AA/686/2019 and orders dated 25.02.2025 passed on the strength of the impugned orders, shall not be implemented by the Deputy Collector, Khambhat till the Collector decides the application that would be preferred by the petitioners within the time limit stipulated hereinabove. (vii) It is further clarified that if the Collector, Anand rejects the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 67 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, then the above protection shall continue to remain for a period of fifteen (15) days thereof. (viii) It is further clarified that the protection granted hereinabove is subject to the condition that the petitioners would be making an application under Section 67 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order and whereas, in case such an application is not made within the time limit stipulated hereinabove, then none of the directions protecting the petitioners shall remain. (ix) Upon the application being made by the petitioners under Section 67 as above, the Collector shall consider the same appropriately strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the orders passed by the Collector which are challenged before the GRT as well as without being influenced by the fact of the appeal applications pending before the GRT. 7. With these observations and directions, present petitions stand disposed of as partly allowed. Direct service is permitted.