1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangdhara in breach of condition Case No. 68 of 2004 and order dated 06.02.2009 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Appeal Case No. 45 of 2008 as well as order dated 01.04.2010 passed by the Special Secretary (Revenue) in Revision Case No. 12 of 2009.
2.0 The petitioner is registered society under Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The land being Survey Nos. 1035, 164 and 122 was alloted by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra to the petitioner-society which consisted agricultural labourers belong to Scheduled Caste community vide four different orders dated 24.07.1975, 08.04.1976, 07.07.1977 and 12.08.1976. Vide order dated 06.03.1999, the petitioner-society was taken under liquidation under the provisions of Section 107 of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, and also of Liquidator under Section 108 of the Act was made. The said order of the liquidation has been confirmed even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the Liquidator appointed by the District Registrar had taken over the charge and administration of the land in question. Since the land in question was lying fallow and uncultivated for two consecutive years i.e. 2002-2004 and 2004-2004, the Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra initiated proceedings for breach of conditions and vide order dated 20.11.2008 ordered the land in question to be confiscated ans vest in the State Government. The said order of the Deputy Collector was taken in appeal before the Collector, Surendarnagar who vide order dated 06.02.2009 confirmed the same and rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Collector, Surendranagar and Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra, the petitioner-society preferred Revision Application before Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2010. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 5966 of 2001. However, there is neither any application for cultivating the lad nor is it found that they are cultivating the land in question by the petitioner-society. The order which has been passed by the Deputy Collector on 20.11.2008 cancelling the grant in favour of the petitioner-society is due to breach of condition. Learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to point out anything from the record that the petitioner-society has made application for cultivating the land in question or they are cultivating the land restraining by extraneous factors which was beyond the control of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that cultivation was not shown and is also confirmed on 06.02.2009 and the same is also confirmed by the Special (Secretary) by stating that petitioner has no locus. Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that cost should be imposed by the petitioner as the petitioner has no locus.
4.0 I am in complete agreement with reasonings given by the authority and no interference is warranted. The petition is rejected. Since the petitioner- society is for Scheduled Caste community, it will not be appropriate to impose cost upon the petitioner in favour of the respondent.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top