S.G.SHAH, J. - (1.) ORDER dated 17.01.2012 by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16974 of 2011 is under challenge by the original petitioner whose petition has been rejected by reasoned detailed order after hearing both the parties.
(2.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.Subhash G.Barot for the appellant and Mrs.Krina Calla, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat. Both the parties have agreed for deciding this appeal finally at admission stage. The issue is pertaining to cancellation of allocation of land by the Government to the appellant. Order dated 29.09.1973 for such allocation is on record at Annexure-B, which confirms that land in question was allotted to the appellant for industrial purpose, mainly for running ginning mill on terms and conditions set-out in such order. Amongst such condition, at present, we are concerned with conditions No.7, 13 and 16(2), which makes it clear that the land is provided only for the purpose of ginning mill and it shall not be allotted to be used for any other purpose without prior permission of the Government and that the open land should not be used for any other purpose like storing goods or other materials. Whereas condition No.15 confirms that any addition to conditions mentioned in such order, the issuing authority, namely, the Collector Surendranagar shall have the right to frame other conditions from time to time and the same shall be abide by the applicant, and that if any of the condition laid down is breached, then the approval shall be cancelled and the possession of the land shall be taken back without payment of any compensation. There is no dispute that appellant has never started ginning mill on such land and, therefore, respondents have cancelled the allocation by order dated 27.08.2010. It is specifically stated in such order that there is breach of terms and conditions, and on local inspection, it was found that the land was covered by compound wall and there was one office room with four residential room for servants, two additional rooms without ceiling with old machinery of ginning, but ginning mill is not functional since the year 2001 as confirmed by the son of the appellant himself, namely, Chandrakantbhai Pranlal Patel in his statement dated 22.03.2010. Thereby, it is confirmed that though the land in question was used for running ginning mill from 1973 till 2001, from 2001 onwards the land is being used for storage and residential purpose and even electric connection was not available for running ginning mill at such place. All such breach are considered as breach of terms and conditions of the allotment and, therefore, respondents have cancelled the allotment, which was challenged by the appellant in proper channel before the Revenue Authorities and, ultimately, before the learned Single Judge.
(3.) ON perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that learned Single Judge has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter as may be argued by both the sides, and considering the factual aspect, which is having concurrent finding throughout the proceeding, the learned Single Judge has rejected the Special Civil Application by impugned order.;