PATEL MOHANBHAI ISHWARBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.S.S. Sanjanwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to delete respondent No.3, who is reported as expired, on the ground that the matter before the State Government was contested only by the petitioners having purchased the land by registered sale deed after payment of the consideration to the original owner. Considering the facts and circumstances, leave granted.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid order, the matter shall be essentially between the petitioners and the State Government having exercised the revisional jurisdiction against the order passed by the T.D.O. granting N.A. permission of the land in question.

(3.) The short facts of the case appear to be that one Mahijibhai Somabhai was holding the land at village Maghasar, Taluka Halol, District Panchmahals applied for permission for non-agricultural use of the land to Taluka Panchayat, Halol on 15.09.1980. The Taluka Development Officer passed the order on 24/25.11.1980 granting permission for N.A. use of the land in question. One of the conditions No.18 of the permission was to pay premium of Rs.18,906/- to the District Collector, Panchmahals after obtaining permission from the District Collector. However, subsequently, on 11.05.1981, a modification of the said conditions was ordered by the T.D.O. whereby, the stipulation for obtaining permission from the District Collector was deleted and condition No.18 was substituted by providing that since the land is subject to the restriction under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the premium of Rs.18,906/- shall be required to be deposited with the State Government. It appears that the entry came to be mutated in the revenue record and the petitioners thereafter, have purchased the said land by registered sale deed dated 26.12.1980. It appears that the State Government on 05.12.1988, initiated the proceedings under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') and called upon the petitioners and others to show cause as to why the matter should not be taken in revision against the order passed by the T.D.O. for grant of N.A. permission. The petitioners submitted the reply and the record shows that the original holder of the land namely Shri Mahijibhai Somabhai did not make any representation, possibly because the land was already sold by him to the petitioners. The State Government after hearing the petitioners, who were occupant of the land and holding the land on the relevant point of time, passed the order and the order of T.D.O., granting permission for N.A. use was set aside and it is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court by preferring the present petitions.