Heard Mr.A.J.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Non Agricultural Use Permission was granted on 24.04.2006, for the cancellation of which a show cause notice was issued on 01.04.2010, and the said permission was cancelled vide impugned order dated 03.08.2011 of the State Government.
It is further submitted that the position of law is settled that any permission cannot be revoked and revisional powers cannot be exercised beyond a reasonable period of time and it has been held by this Court that in the case of revocation of N.A. Permission, three months is a reasonable period of time. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Vaghri Jivandas Manji & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. - 2008(3) GLR 2034.
It is further submitted that the land in question was originally having three survey numbers, which later came to be consolidated by the State Government. That, the show cause notice has been issued only in respect of one survey number. Now, with the passage of time, equities have changed and the petitioners has further sold the land to other persons, the list of whom is appended at running Page 45 of the paper-book.
The learned advocate for the petitioner further contends that the land was not of new tenure but was old tenure impartible land.
Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, opposes the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner by submitting that if illegality is detected, revisional powers can be exercised at any time as per the provisions of Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. It is further submitted that Survey No.393 was originally new tenure, as is clear from the extract of Village Form No.7/12. It was later on converted to old tenure land subject to condition that it is treated as impartible. That, at the stage of grant of Non Agricultural Use Permission, the petitioner was bound to pay premium since the land was to be used for commercial purposes. Therefore, as the Non Agricultural Use Permission has been granted without sanction of the State Government, the impugned order cancelling the Non Agricultural Use Permission is just and proper.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the Court is called upon to consider whether the Non Agricultural Use Permission granted in the year 2006 should be cancelled in the year 2011. Further, the primary issue to be considered would also be regarding the tenure and nature of the land. The matter requires deeper consideration. Hence, issue Rule returnable on 23.04.2012.
The ad-interim relief, granted earlier, is confirmed and shall operate as interim relief till the final decision of the petition.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) (sunil) Top