BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA - (1.)BY this Special Civil application, the writ-petitioner has challenged an order dated June 5, 1996 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, by which the said authority rejected the revisional application preferred by the writ-petitioner against an order dated November 13, 1992 passed by the respondent No.2 directing removal of construction under Section 66 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code ("Code").
(2.)BEING dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The facts giving rise to the filing of this application may be summed up thus :-

3.1 The petitioner owned and possessed land bearing Sub-plot Nos.3 and 4 of Final Plot No.476 of Town Planning Scheme No.2 of Anand. The said Town Planning Scheme was finalized before the year 1985. On finalization of the scheme, the petitioner made an application to the Anand Area Development Authority ("AADA") for granting development permission under Section 29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ("Act"). 3.2 The AADA, after examining the proposal, granted development permission by an order dated May 7, 1985 thereby permitting the petitioner to construct in accordance with the plan submitted.

3.3 As some changes were required to be made in the proposed construction of the buildings, the petitioner made an application for revision of the development permission and after examining various aspects, the AADA granted revised development permission on April 29, 1986. In the said permission, however, it was further written that the revised permission was granted for construction subject to the responsibility of obtaining approval of the Revenue Department at the instance of the petitioner. 3.4 On October 16, 1989, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice upon the petitioner under Section 66 of the Code as to why the construction put up by the petitioner should not be removed. 3.5 The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice thereby pointing out that the construction put up by him was in accordance with the development permission granted by the AADA and thus, there was no violation on the part of the petitioner. The respondent No.2, however, by order dated May 21, 1991 directed removal of the construction put up by the petitioner.

3.6 Being dissatisfied with the said order passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred a Revisional Application being No.11 of 1991 before the State-respondent and, ultimately, the State- respondent by its order dated December 11, 1991 partly allowed the said revisional application by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 and remanding the matter back to the Collector for a fresh decision. In the said order, the State-respondent indicated that if there was any technical breach, it might by regularized by requiring the petitioner to pay penalty. Later, on June 9, 1992, the AADA issued completion certificate in respect of the buildings constructed by the petitioner. 3.7 Subsequently, however, as the petitioner did not obtain "no objection" endorsement, by order dated November 13, 1992, the respondent No.2 directed removal of the construction under Section 66 of the Code. 3.8 Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred a fresh revisional application before the State Government and by the order impugned herein, the said revisional authority has dismissed the revisional application by affirming the order of removal of construction.

Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.)THIS writ-application initially came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court and His Lordship by order dated March 30, 2007 referred the matter to the Division Bench as His Lordship was unable to agree with the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Karimbhai Kalubhai Belim & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 1996 (1) GLR 659 on the similar point involved therein.
Hence, the matter has come up before this Bench for disposal.