Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Bombay vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|10 April, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. Heard Mr.S.H.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Dilip L.Kanojiya, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted by him that the petitioner-Trust had been given permission to purchase 300 Acres of land in the year 1994. The petitioner-Trust was established on 18.10.1934. The object for which it has been established is the protection of animals such as cows, buffaloes, dogs,etc. and to save animals from being slaughtered and to look after them until they die. Pursuant to the permission granted by the State Government, on 13-4-1994 the petitioner-Trust purchased 300 Acres of land. A notice was issued to the petitioner Trust for breach of conditions. Subsequent thereto, the Deputy Collector passed an order cancelling the permission, that was challenged by the petitioner Trust before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By judgment dated 28-2-2005 the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal set aside the order dated 15-6-1992 passed by the Deputy Collector and remanded the matter back to Deputy Collector for fresh decision, after affording the petitioner Trust an opportunity of hearing. Learned Senior advocate submits that this matter is still pending before the Deputy Collector. In the meanwhile, a show cause notice dated 20-6-2011 under the provisions of Section 63 read with Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 ('the Act' for short) was issued to the petitioner Trust. The proceedings took place before the Mamlatdar and ALT who passed the impugned order dated 6-3-2012, directing forfeiture of the land of the petitioner Trust. The learned Senior advocate further contents that the Collector has addressed four communications to the Deputy Collector on 28-1-11, 1-5-11, 12-8-11 and 6-7-11 directing him to initiate proceedings under Section 84C of the Act. That these communications are prior to the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT, therefore, it can be said that the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT has been passed on the basis of the directions given by the Collector to the Deputy Collector. It is submitted that this aspect is clear from the impugned order of the Mamlatdar & ALT itself, wherein the letter dated 28-1-2011 has been mentioned and the directions contained in it have also been detailed. It is vehemently urged by the learned Senior Advocate that the Collector is the Appellate Authority before whom the impugned order of the Mamlatdar and ALT could have been challenged by the petitioner. However, as the Collector has himself directed the Deputy Collector to initiate action against the petitioner Trust under Section 84C of the Act, filing of appeal before the Collector would not be an efficacious remedy, though provided in the Statute, as the Collector is of a predetermined mind. It is further contended that the local MLA (respondent No.4) has written letter dated 8-8-2011 (Annexure "G")to the Collector directing him to initiate action against the petitioner Trust, by starting proceedings under Section 84C of the Act and to return the land to the original land owner. The learned Senior advocate submits that in this view of the matter, the remedy before the Collector cannot be availed of by the petitioner Trust as he would be influenced by the letter of respondent No.4, that clearly constitutes a colourable exercise of power.
2. Mr.Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader,who has appeared on supply of advance copy of the petition, submits that the petitioner Trust ought to be relegated to availing of the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Collector.
3. Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed:
4. Issue notice, returnable on 1-5-2012. By way of ad-interim relief it is directed that the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 6-3-2012 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Valsad in Tenancy case No.9649 of 2011 shall remain stayed, till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, direct service is also permitted.
(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J) arg Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Bombay vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
10 April, 2012