KARADIA MERAGBHAI KANABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside impugned communication/order dtd. 20/2/2006 passed by respondent no.2. It is also prayed that the respondent nos.1 and 2 be directed to assess and fix the amount of premium of the subject land as on the date of first application i.e. 1987-1988 and regularize the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner by converting the tenure of the land.

(2.) The facts of the case are that in the year 1955 an agriculture land bearing Survey No. 128 admeasuring 8Acre-27 gunthas situate at Mouje : Amrapur, Taluka : Maliya Hatina, District ; Junagadh (herein after referred to as subject land) was originally allotted to one Vipra Vanmali Jivram. Accordingly, revenue entry no. 224 came to be mutated in the revenue record. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 regranted some parcels of land to the original land holder as avediya and another entry being revenue entry no. 709 dtd. 19/4/1967 came to be mutated in the village form no. 6.

(3.) By filing affidavit in reply, it is contended on behalf of Mamlatdar, Maliya Hatina, that the petitioner had preferred an application on 17/1/2004 to regularize the sale proceedings. However, since this was a new tenure land and sale transaction was carried out without prior permission of the Government and without making payment of premium, the procedure was to be carried out accordingly. It is contended that on 29/7/1988, the petitioner had given consent before Talati, Amrapur, that he will pay the premium amount as decided by the Government. It is contended that the Revenue Department directed to make payment of Rs.8,07,961.00 as premium amount against which the petitioner asked for installments, which was not granted as there is no provision of granting installments for payment of premium amount. It is contended that the petitioner did not pay any amount and entered into correspondence for reconsideration of the amount, though he has earlier admitted to pay the amount. It is contended that order passed by the authority is proper, legal and valid.