Heard Mr.Mehul H. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted by him that the petitioners have purchased shops constructed by the purchaser of the land, from the original owner Smt. Manjulaben Bhojak. That the original owner was granted the land on 11.09.1975 and the Sanad was issued to her in November-1976. Proceedings were initiated by the third party in the year 1987, that eventually culminated in the order dated 13.10.1999. As the petitioners were not made parties to the said litigation, they approached the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No.8203 of 2000. By order dated 31.01.2009, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the orders of the Prant Officer, District Collector and Revisional Authority, and directed the Collector, Banaskantha, to decide the matter on merits, after considering the representations and documents tendered by the affected parties, including the petitioners. It is submitted that, thereafter, the Collector passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 upholding the order of the Deputy Collector, to the effect that the Taluka Development Officer had no power to allot the land in question, without considering the aspect that the Taluka Development Officer was divested of the powers with effect from 28.07.1976, whereas permission to grant the land had been given on 11.09.1975. It is further submitted that at the relevant point of time when the land was granted, the population of the village was below 5,000 and the Taluka Development Officer had power to grant the land, which aspect has been ignored by the Collector and the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned orders. It is further contended that proceedings have been initiated after a period of about nine years from the date of grant, by the third party. Further, only grant of permission and conversion of the land had been challenged by the third party, whereas the initial order of grant has been set aside by the Collector, which is confirmed by the Revisional Authority. The learned advocate for the petitioners further contends that the impugned orders are against the record of the case. The petitioners have purchased the shops and are carrying on their respective businesses. Looking to the period of time that has elapsed after grant of the land, the nature of land has now been changed, therefore, protection may be given to the petitioners.
Issue Notice, returnable on 24.02.2012.
By way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rakesh/ Top