SENDHAV BACHUBHAI RAJSHIBHAI Vs. DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms. Vandana Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been served, but none has appeared on their behalf in this Court, till date.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner in possession of land bearing Block No. 2 in Revenue Survey No. 460, admeasuring 100 X 150 feet, situated at Village : Lolada, Taluka : Sami, District : Patan, (referred to as the 'suit land' ).

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order as well as the order of the trial Court are liable to be quashed and set aside, as both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the documentary evidence on record, and the findings of the trial Court have erroneously been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has been in possession of the suit land for the last more than 50 years, and has produced documentary evidence in the shape of a resolution of the Gram Panchayat, passed in the year 1965, whereby the suit land was allotted to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has produced the assessment Register, which clearly shows that the petitioner has been paying land revenue in respect of the suit land. The receipts of payment made to the concerned Gram Panchayat towards panchayat tax have also been produced by the petitioner, which goes to show that the petitioner has throughout been in possession of the suit land. Not only that, the petitioner had been granted permission to construct upon the said land by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1966. The impugned order has been passed without considering these relevant aspects and, therefore, the same being erroneous, may be quashed and set aside and the petition allowed.