Gujarat High Court
Dipak G. Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/SCA/20557/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20557 of 2022
==========================================================
DIPAK G. PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AS VAKIL(962) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR J. K. SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 20/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By this petition, the petitioners, have prayed for quashing and
setting aside of the order dated 14.6.2022 passed by the Collector
whereby, the application of the petitioner dated 28.3.2022 seeking
non-agricultural use permission (hereinafter referred to as "NA
permission), has been disposed of.
2. Mr Apurva S. Vakil, learned advocate submitted that the
petitioners, have been struggling since 2018 seeking NA permission.
NA permissions, were refused on one or the other ground. It is
submitted that the application which was made in the year 2022,
has been disposed of, inter alia, on the ground that it is not clear as
to whether any proceedings, have been initiated under the Gujarat
Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 or not? Furthermore, the
opinion of the Prant Officer which was called for is awaited. It is
submitted that had the petitioners being given an opportunity, the
petitioners would have submitted/furnished all the details and/or
documents; however, without offering any opportunity, the order
C/SCA/20557/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
dated 14.6.2022 has been passed which would be in violation of
principles of natural justice.
3. Mr A. S. Vakil, learned advocate submitted that the issue, is no
longer res integra, in view of the judgments of this Court, in the case
of Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat reported in 2019
(4) GLR 2578 as well as judgment in the case of Bhayabhai
Vajshibhai Hathalia and anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in
2012 (2) GLR 1741. In the judgment in the case of Tusharbhai
Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (supra), in paragraph 39, it has
been held and observed that the key-word in Section 65 is the
occupant of the land and it is sufficient for the purposes of Section
65, that the person applying for NA Permission is an occupant of the
land. It has further been held that it is nowhere stated in the said
provision that the applicant should have title or ownership over the
land for which NA Permission is sought. It is therefore submitted
that it would be impermissible for the Collector, to have gone into
the title of the land in question. It is urged that let the Collector,
while deciding the NA application, may also consider the judgments
of this Court which, may be cited.
4. Mr J. K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader was
required to take instructions, as regards hearing offered to the
petitioners. Mr Shah, fairly conceded that before passing the order
dated 14.6.2022, no hearing was afforded to the petitioners.
5. Heard Mr Apurva S. Vakil, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners and Mr J. K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the respondent-State.
6. The challenge in the captioned writ petition, is the order dated
14.6.2022 passed by the Collector whereby, the application of the
C/SCA/20557/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
petitioners, seeking NA permission has been disposed of.
Undeniably, the order dated 14.6.2022, has been passed without
hearing the petitioners. Therefore, without entering into the merits
of the matter, only on this limited ground of the order having been
passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the order dated
14.6.2022 passed by the Collector, is quashed and set aside. The
matter is remitted to the Collector with a direction to decide the NA
application that may be filed by the petitioners within a period of 10
days from today. Let the Collector take a decision within a period of
3 months' thereafter.
7. It will be open to the petitioners to raise all the contentions
and cite the judgments, which are forming part of the captioned writ
petition.
8. Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Direct service is
permitted.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
RAVI P. PATEL
