Gujarat High Court
SCA/1695/1987 of PRESIDENT, MIRZAPUR MOTI QURESH JAMAT Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 28 September 1995
1 Date of Decision: 28th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1695 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? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish
-#-
.FO 1
���Date of Decision: 28th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1695 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?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment?
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?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.R. Shaikh, Advocate, for the Petitioner Shri D.N. Patel, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for the Respondent----------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(Date: 28th September 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 the Deputy Collector (N.A.) ofAhmedabad ('the first authority' for convenience) on 4th June1983 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Collectorof Ahmedabad ('the appellate authority' for convenience) on 16thAugust 1984 in L.B. Appeal No. 198 of 1983 as further affirmedin revision by the order passed by the Secretary, RevenueDepartment (Appeals) at Ahmedabad ('the revisional authority'for convenience) on 28th October 1985 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By hisimpugned order, the first authority levied asessment withpenalty in the sum of Rs. 15,894/- with respect to one parcelof land bearing Survey No. 89/90 (part) of Final Plot No. 125(part) situated within the reveneue limits of the city ofAhmedabad ('the disputed land' for convenience).
2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrowcompass. The disputed land was granted to the petitioner bytheorder passed by and on behalf of the State Government some timeon 20th June 1970. A copy of the sanad in that regard is atAnnexure A to this petition. It transpires therefrom that itwas granted on certain terms and conditions. One such conditionwas that the construction thereon was tobe in accordance withtheplans approved by the Muncipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and thatthe two-thirds portion of the disputed land was tobe kept asopen presumably as margin land. It appears that someconstruction was found to have been made onthe margin land.Thereupon in inquirywas undertaken under sec. 67 of the BombayLand Revenue Code, 1879 ('the Code' for brief). After hearingthe parties, by his order passed on 4thJune 1983, the firstauthority levied the duty of assessment with penalty to the tuneof Rs. 15,894. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition.The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before theappellate authority under sec. 203 of the Code. It came to beregistered as L.B. Appeal No. 198 of 1983. By his orderpassed on16th August 1984 in the aforesaid appeal, the appellateauthority dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure D to thispetiton. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter inrevision before the revisional authority. By his order passedon 28th October 1985 in the aforesaid revisional application,the revisional authority rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure Eto this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereuponapproached this court by means of this petition under Art. 227of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness ofthe impugned order at Annexure C to this petition as affirmed inappeal by the appellate order at Annexure D to this petition asfurther affirmed in revision by the revisional order at AnnexureE to this petition.
3. It is clear that under the terms and conditions of thesanad at Annexure A to this petition, the petitioner wasrequired to construct in accordance with theplans approved bythe Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and to keep thetwo-thirds of the area open as margin land. It appears that theconstruction was carried out in accordance with the plansapproved by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. However, itis found by the authorities in their impugned order that someconstruction was raised in themargin land. That was contrary totheconditions of the sanad at Annexure A to this petition.
4. It is not possible to countenance the submission urgedbefore me by Shri Shaikh for the petitioner to the effect that,since the construction was raised after approvalof the plans bythe Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, the only authorityempowered to take action for raising construction on themarginland wouldbe Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and not anyrevenue officer. It may be noted that under the terms andconditions of the sanad, the petitioner was required tokeep openas margin land the two-thirds of the disputed land. If thatcondition is violated, the officer issuing such sanad can besaid to be within his authorityto take appropriate action forbreach of such conditions