- (1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 9th/18th October, 1996 passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.21/1994, whereby the respondent No.1 has allowed the revision application filed by the respondent No.3 Bank and set aside the order dated 26.9.1994 passed by the Collector and further directed the Collector to consider the application of the respondent No.3 for the allotment of the plot in question to the respondent No.3.
(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the plot in question being part of the Survey No.513/2 admeasuring 66 sq. mtrs., situated adjacent to the building of the respondent No.3 was allotted to one G. K. Molvi, the then Deputy Mamlatdar at Dhari vide the order dated 20.8.1986 passed by the Collector, however, on the revision application filed by the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.1, the said order of the Collector was set aside vide the order dated 14.3.1989 passed by the respondent No.1, making observation to the effect that the Collector could allot the plots to the Government employees at some other place and consider the application of the respondent No.3 for the plot in question. It appears that thereafter the respondent No.3 made fresh application on 7.8.1990, requesting the Collector to allot the said plot to the said Bank, however, the Collector rejected the said demand of the respondent No.3 vide the letter dated 18.7.1992. The respondent No.3 therefore again made a request vide the letter dated 18.11.1993. In the meantime, the present petitioner, who was a Clerk in the office of Mamlatdar, Dhari had applied for the allotment of the said piece of land to him on 17.9.1992 and the Collector granted the said application by allotting 40 sq. mtrs. of land out of the said Survey No.513/2, vide the order dated 11.4.1994, subject to the conditions mentioned therein (Annexure-B). According to the petitioner, the petitioner had paid the price of the land as fixed by the Collector and he was also handed over the possession of the said part of the land on 16.4.1994 as per the possession receipt at Annexure-C. The petitioner on 18.5.1994 had also submitted an undertaking in Form No.H as per Annexure-D. The Collector, thereafter, rejected the application of the respondent No.3 Bank to allot the said plot, vide the order dated 26.9.1994. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.3 had preferred the revision application before the respondent No.1 under Section 211 of the Code. The said revision application has been allowed by the respondent No.1 vide the impugned order dated 18.10.1996.
(3.) The learned Counsel Mr.Siddharth Dave for the petitioner, taking the Court to the documents on record, submitted that the petitioner having been allotted the plot in question as per the Government Policy and the petitioner having paid the price and having been handed over the possession of the said land, the respondent No.1 should not have directed the Collector to reconsider the application of the respondent No.3. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Murji Patel (Keral) Vs. State of Gujarat, 2007 1 GLR 671 he submitted that the petitioner was issued the sanad in respect of the plot in question, and therefore, the revision application under Section 211 of the said Code filed by the respondent No.3 was not maintainable. He also submitted that the respondent No.3 Bank had filed one suit for restraining the Collector from making any allotment of the plot in question to any third party, however, the said suit was unconditionally withdrawn, which fact was suppressed by the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.1.;