Heard Mr.Devang Nanavati, learned advocate for Mrs.V.D.Nanavati,learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that permission for non-agricultural use was granted by the Collector in respect of the land in question on 16.02.2006. Thereafter the land is being shown in the revenue record as non-agricultural land. In spite of the same, by passing the impugned order dated 07.04.2012, the Collector, Kachchh, has directed that certain parcels of land, including Survey No.197 paiki, which is the land in question, be resumed by the Government for the reason that it belongs to a person, who is not an agriculturist of the State of Gujarat. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that though there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the order of the Collector, the petition may be entertained, as no notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Collector before passing the impugned order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that even otherwise, the order of the Collector is without jurisdiction, as the land in question, having been permitted to be used for non-agricultural purposes in the year 2006, is not covered by the Circular dated 18.12.2010, that pertains to agricultural land, only.
The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments :
(1) Mariamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank and others reported in (2009) 16 SCC 187.
(2) Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 126.
Issue Notice returnable on 05.07.2012.
Status-quo, as it exists today, qua the land in question, shall be maintained and no coercive action be taken in respect of the land in question, till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) Gaurav+ Top