Gujarat High Court
SCA/5664/1992 of PATEL RAMJIBHAI BHANABHAI Vs DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER on 11 September 1995
Decision: 11th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5664 of 1992 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to
���Date of Decision: 11th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5664 of 1992
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No
---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri U.A. Trivedi, Advocate, for Shri R.R. Trivedi, Advocate,for the Petitioner Respondent No.1 served Shri K.C. Shah, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for Respondent No. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(Date: 11th September 1995)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The order passed by the District Development Officer of Junagadh (Respondent No.1 herein) on 3rd November 1990 asaffirmed in revision by the order passed by the PrincipalSecretary (Appeal), Revenue Department at Ahmedabad, on 10thJanuary 1992 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondentNo.1 rejected the petitioner's application for grant of a small
2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner runs his small-scale industry in oneparcel of land in the village site admeasuring about 1200 acresequivalent to about 1002 square meters. A small parcel of landadmeasuring about 127 square yards equivalent to about 106square meters is adjacent to the land housing the petitioner'ssmall-scale industry ('the disputed land' for convenience). Thepetitioner applied for grant of the disputed land for industrialpurposes. By his order passed on 3rd November 1990, respondentNo.1 rejected his application. Its copy is at Annexure A tothis petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter inrevision before respondent No. 2. A copy of the memo ofrevision is at Annexure B to this petition. It came to beregistered as Revision Application No. 30 of 1991. By hisorder passed on 10th January 1991 in the revisional application,respondent No.2 rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure C to thispetition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approachedthis court by means of this petition under Art. 227 of theConstitution of India for questioning the correctness of theorder at Annexure A to this petition as affirmed in revision bythe order at Annexure C to this petition.
3. As rightly submitted by Shri Shah for respondent No.2, this court will not interfere with any finding of fact underArt. 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the bindingruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus v.Mohd. Mustaqim and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 38. It mustbe said in fairness to Shri Trivedi for the petitioner that hehas not challenged any finding of fact.
4. It is true that the disputed land is situated within thevillage site. It is also not in dispute that it is adjacent tothe land housing the petitioner's small-scale industry. It isalso not in dispute that it is a small strip of land admeasuringabout the 1/10th of the land housing the petitioner'ssmall-scale industry. It transpires from the revisional orderat Annexure C to this petition that it is of no use either tothe concerned panchayat or to anyone. It also transpirestherefrom that it is not even in the roadline. It appears thatno one has any objection to the grant of this land in favour ofthe petitioner.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that on the Northern
side a parcel of land houses one industry in the name and styleof Patel Industry. It is just facing the petitioner'ssmall-scale industry on the other side of the road. If thepetitioner's small-scale industry is already in the village siteand if a useless strip of land adjacent to the petitioner'ssmall-scale industry is applied for by the petitioner for industrial purposes, simply because it is situated in thevillage site should not come in the way of its grant to thepetitioner with imposition of certain conditions as to its useprovided there are no other impediments against such grant.This aspect of the matter is considered neither by respondentNo.1 nor by respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, theimpugned order at Annexure A to this petition as affirmed inrevision by the order at Annexure C to this petition can be saidto be suffering from the vice of non-application of mind on thepart of its respective authors.
6. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat the impugned order at Annexure A to this petition asaffirmed in revision by the revisional order at Annexure Cto this petition has to be quashed and set aside. The matter isrequired to be remanded to respondent No.1 for his freshdecision according to law in the light of this judgment of mine.
7. In the result, this petition is accepted to theaforesaid extent. The impugned order passed by the DistrictDevelopment Officer on 3rd November 1990 at Annexure A to thispetition as affirmed in revision by the order passed by thePrincipal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, at Ahmedabadon 10th January 1992 at Annexure C to this petition is quashedand set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 forhis fresh decision according to law in the light of thisjudgment of mine. Rule is accordingly made absolute to theaforesaid extent with no order as to costs.