JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner purchased S. No, 32 by a registered sale dated 4-5-1982 from one Jagubhai Adesinh Parmar for the purpose of putting up an industry on the same. The petitioner and said Jagubhai applied for N.A. permission, which was granted by the Taluka Development Officer-respondent No. 2 on 15-3-1982. The plans submitted by the petitioner were also approved by the 2nd respondent on 27-11-1982. The State Government, prim facic, felt that the said orders passed by the 2nd respondent were not proper and legal and, therefore, in exercise of its powers under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code, issued a show cause notice to Jagubhai Adesinh Partner-original owner of the land on 25-2-1986 and to the petitioner on 28-4-1986, calling upon them to show cause why the said two orders should not be cancelled. Both of them were thereafter heard and by its order dated 6-3-1987, the State Government cancelled both those orders. The petitioner had, therefore, filed this petition challenging the said order passed by the Government on 6-3-1987.
(2.)The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the State Government could not have cancelled the permission granted under Section 65 of the Code after a lapse of about five years. In support of his submission he has relied upon a decision of this Court in Yashkamal Builders v. State of Gujarat, 1989(1) Gujarat Law Herald 177 (Special Civil Application No. 5834 of 1987). In the case of Yashkamal Builders (supra) the State Government had cancelled the permission granted to the original owner of the land after a lapse of about 4 years. This Court pointed out that pursuant to the permission granted under Section 65 of the Code, the petitioner in that case had put up construction on the land at a huge costs. This Court then held that the provisional powers under Section 211 could not be exercised after expiry of a reasonable period. This Court further held that the period of 4 years was an unreasonably long period and, therefore, without any valid explanation for the said delay, the State Government could not have cancelled the permission granted under Secticn 65 of the Code.
(3.)As stated earlier, in this case also, after purchasing the land, the petitioner has put up its factory over the land in question at a huge cost after obtaining loans from the Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation and the Gujarat State Finance Corporation. No explanation is coming forth as to why no action was taken by the Government earlier for cancelling the said two orders passed by the Taluka Development Officers. Following the judgment of this Court in Yashkamal Builders' cast (supra), this petition will have to be allowed.
Rule made absolute.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.