1. Heard Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Mukesh A. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the decision to allot the land to the petitioner has been taken by the State Government by order dated 04.04.1995. The formal order of allotment has been passed on 21.04.1995, and the land has been allotted on permanent, impartible basis. It is contended that certain persons, who are the complainants in the present proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section:79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 ("the Code", for short), have suffered a decree of eviction at the behest of the petitioner, which has been confirmed by the High Court, by judgment dated 04.10.2002, rendered in Second Appeal No.228/1980 to Second Appeal No.134/1980. Execution proceedings against these persons are pending. The said persons, with a malafide intention, have made a complaint against the petitioner, for breach of condition. The Collector, vide communication dated 16.08.2011, has directed the Deputy Collector to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a reply before the Deputy Collector, saying that the proceedings are malafide, and that there is no breach of the provisions of Section:79A of the Code. It is further the case of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section:79A are without jurisdiction, as it is the Collector, who is empowered to initiate the proceedings as per the provisions of Section:79A, and not the Deputy Collector. The immediate grievance of the petitioner is that their applications for cross-examination of the complainants, the Talati, Mamlatdar, City Survey Superintendent, and Panch witnesses who have drawn up the Panchanama and recorded the statements, have been rejected by cryptic orders by the Deputy Collector. The learned Senior Advocate contends that in the absence of permission to cross-examine the complainants, the concerned Government officials and the Panch witnesses, the petitioner would be deprived of an adequate opportunity of representing its case.
2. Mr.Pranav S. Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, who appears on supply of an advance copy of the petition, has submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Collector against the rejection of the applications for cross-examination. If the petitioner is not desirous of approaching the Collector, it can approach the State Government against the said orders.
3. Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that the orders of the Deputy Collector, rejecting the applications of the petitioner for cross-examination, are unreasoned. The Collector has directed the Deputy Collector to initiate proceedings, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in approaching the Collector. That the principles of natural justice have been violated by preventing the petitioner from cross-examining the complainants, Government officials and Panch witnesses. Coupled with this, the proceedings are without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court may exercise jurisdiction, instead of relegating the petitioner to availing an alternative remedy.
4. Notice, returnable on 01.02.2012.
Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph-19(b) is granted, till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) ~gaurav~ Top