Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dahiben Govabhai Meria on 5 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/568/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 568 of
2024
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2899 of 2024
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2899 of 2024
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11192 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2899 of 2024
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11192 of 2018
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DAHIBEN GOVABHAI MERIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP, for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR MANOJ N POPAT(671) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 05/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. The instant Appeal has arisen out of the judgment
and order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge and is delayed by 338 days for which no plausible
explanation has been offered by the appellants apart from
casual administrative delay in seeking approval from the
Legal Department for preferring an Appeal. Though we are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/568/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
not convinced with the explanation offered in the application
seeking condonation of delay, but we propose to enter into
the merits of the arguments of learned AGP appearing for the
State appellants to see as to whether any prejudice may be
caused to the State on account of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition.
2. Noticing the facts brought on record, pertinent is to
note that the writ petition was filed challenging the order
dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue
Department (Appeals) in Revision Application
No.MVV/JAMAN/RJT/7 of 2016 as well as the order dated
03.02.2016 passed by the District Collector, Rajkot in
Land/Revision/211/Case No.4/12-13, whereby the order
passed of vesting of the land of Survey No. 134 paiki
admeasuring 8,094 sq. mts. of village Vejagam, Taluka &
District Rajkot with the State Government.
3. The reason given in the order impugned passed by
the Collector for vesting of the land-in-question with the State
Government was that the land-in-question was not cultivated
or put to agricultural use during the period from the year
1995-96 to 2000-01, and as, such, the land-in-question
became the waste land. However, there is no averment in the
order passed by the Collector dated 03.02.2016 that the land-
in-question was not cultivated by the original allottee / his
heirs after the year 2001 or prior to year 1995. The allotment
of the land-in-question was made in the year 1974 and the
same remained in the ownership and possession of the
original allottee / his heirs till the passing of the order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/568/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
03.02.2016 by the District Collector for vesting the land-in-
question with the State Government on the premise that for a
period of six years, during the course of allotment, the land-
in-question was not put to agricultural use.
4. We may further note that no notice was issued by the
Collector during the period, between the year 1995 to 2001,
when allegedly the land-in-question was not put to
agricultural use. The learned Single Judge has categorically
recorded that the order of the District Collector does not
reflect the examination of the record which had been
produced by the petitioners in their favour. The Collector did
not examine the conditions prevailing during those six years,
which were explained by the petitioners and has noted that it
was not examined whether favourable conditions prevailed at
the relevant time for cultivating the crop or not. It is further
relevant to note that on an earlier occasion, a show-cause
notice dated 25.05.2012 was issued by the Deputy Collector
initiating proceedings under Section 79(A) and 202 of the
Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 read with Rules 100 and
101 of the Land Revenue Rules, calling upon the landowners
to explain as to why the land-in-question was not cultivated
for those years i.e. from the year 1995 to 2001. The reply
submitted by the landowners on 11.06.2012 contending that
there was shortfall of rain in the year 1995-96 and, as such,
the crop had failed and from the year 1996-97 to 2001-02, the
land was cultivated but due to heavy rain the crop was
destroyed, was accepted after a rojkam was called for by the
Collector from the concerned Talati and it was found that for
the every year, during the aforesaid period, the land was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/568/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
cultivated. It was also explained by the landholders that due
to lack of legal knowledge, they forgot to undertake
proceeding to enter the details of the crop in the Village
Form No.7/12. The Deputy Collector having accepted the
explanation offered by the landowner, had dropped the
proceedings vide order dated 08.04.2013 and withdrew the
notice dated 25.05.2012 with the direction to the landholders
to cultivate the land on regular basis and not to waste the
same.
5. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the
findings returned by the Deputy Collector in dropping the
proceedings vide order dated 08.04.2013 in earlier
proceedings has not been upturned by the Collector while
passing order for vesting the land-in-question with the State
Government on the premise that the land-in-question was not
cultivated during the afore-mentioned period.
6. No infirmity could be pointed out in the findings
returned by the learned Single Judge on noticing the
reasoning given in the order of the Deputy Collector dated
08.04.2013 to drop the proceedings for summary eviction of
the landholders by virtue of Section 79(A) on the alleged
breach of condition of allotment.
7. The fact remains that the landholders are regularly
cultivating the land-in-question and the said fact had been
demonstrated in the proceedings drawn by the Deputy
Collector with the rojkam submitted by the Talati, we,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/568/2024 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2024
undefined
therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the findings
returned by the learned Single Judge. The act of the Deputy
Collector in passing the order dated 03.02.2016 for vesting
the land-in-question with the State Government while
considering the application moved by the original petitioners
- landholders for grant of permission for conversion of the
land-in-question from old tenure to new tenure, is found to be
a vindictive act. There was no breach at all.
8. For the aforesaid, the present Letters Patent Appeal
is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Civil
Application for delay is dismissed, accordingly.
9. Civil Application for stay as well as any other
pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
AMAR SINGH
