Gujarat High Court
SCA/5924/1987 of PYARALI HASANALI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 7 July 1995
Decision: 7th July 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5924 of 1987 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
���Date of Decision: 7th July 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5924 of 1987
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
------------------------------------------------------------ Smt. K.A. Mehta, Advocate, for the Petitioner Shri V.B. Gerania, Asst. Government Pleader, for theRespondents-----------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(7th July 1995)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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 and on behalf of the StateGovernment (Respondent No.1 herein) on 26th June 1984 isunder challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of theConstitution of India. By its impugned order, RespondentNo.1 set aside the order passed by the Town Development Officer (Respondent No.2 herein) on 5th March 1983 grantingpermission for non-agricultural use of one parcel of landadmeasuring 2420 square yards from survey No. 225 in alladmeasuring 2 acres 4 gunthas situated at Barvala talukaDhandhuka ('the disputed land' for convenience).
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the factsgiving rise to this petition. It may be sufficient to notethat the disputed land was used for agricultural purposes.The petitioner applied for a permission to use it fornon-agricultural purposes for raising a hotel therein. Suchpermission, on certain terms and conditions, was granted byrespondent No.2 by his order passed on 5th March 1983. Itscopy is at Annexure A to this petition. The petitionerthereafter made construction in accordance with the plans andobtained a licence to run hotel from the Sub-DivisionalMagistrate at Dholka. Its copy is at Annexure B to thispetition. It appears that the order at Annexure A to thispetition came to the notice of the concerned officer ofrespondent No.1 He appears to have found it not according tolaw. Its suo motu revision under sec. 211 of the BombayLand Revenue Coded, 1879 ('the Code' for brief) wascontemplated. A show-cause notice thereupon came to beissued on 28th May 1984 calling upon the petitioner to showcause why the order at Annexure A to this petition should notbe revised. After hearing the petitioner, by the orderpassed by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 26th June1984, the order at Annexure A to this petition came to be setaside. A copy of the aforesaid order passed on 26th June1984 is at Annexure E to this petition. The aggrievedpetitioner has thereupon approached this court by means ofthis petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of Indiafor questioning its correctness.
3. As rightly submitted by Smt. Mehta for the petitioner,relying on the Division Bench ruling of this court in thecase of Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr.reported in (1971) 12 G.L.R. 156, the powers under sec. 211of the Code cannot be exercised after expiry of a period ofone year from the date of the order sought to be revised. Inthe instant case the order at Annexure A to this petition waspassed on 5th March 1983. The show-cause notice for itsrevision under sec. 211 was issued on 28th May 1984, thatis, nearly 15 months after the date of the order at AnnexureA to this petition. That was certainly beyond the period of12 months prescribed by the aforesaid ruling of this court.In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 had no power orauthority to upset the order at Annexure A to this petitionin view of the aforesaid binding Division Bench ruling ofthis court. On this short ground this petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order at Annexure E to thispetition deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. In view of my aforesaid conclusion, I have not thoughtit fit to deal with the other submissions urged before me bySmt. Mehta for the petitioner pertaining to the merits ofthe order.
5. In the result, this petition is accepted. The orderpassed by and on behalf of the State of Gujarat on 26th June1984 at Annexure E to this petition is quashed and set aside.Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.