1. Rule. Mr. Pranav S.Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.
2. By preferring this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19-01-2000, passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, and the order dated 06-12-1995, passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad, rejecting the application of the petitioner for re-grant of the land in question.
3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the petition, may be recapitulated as below:
3.1 Land bearing Survey No.567, admeasuring 8 Acres and 3 Gunthas, and Survey No.343, admeasuring 2 Acres and 23 Gunthas, both situated at village Ashoknagar, Taluka Viramgam, District Ahemdabad was originally held by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. A partition of the family property took place, on the basis of which the petitioner was given possession of the land in question which, according to him, was being cultivated by him. As per the case of the petitioner, his name has been mutated in the Revenue Records vide Entry No.927, dated 6-7-1968, and the extracts of Village Form No.VII/XII also indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question and is cultivating the same. The petitioner took a loan from the Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank (“the Bank” for short) at Viramgam, for development of the land in question, and mortgaged the said land with the Bank. The loan could not be repaid by the petitioner as, according to him, he was a victim of adverse circumstances that were prevailing at that point of time. Auction proceedings in respect of the land in question were carried out by the Recovery Officer. As the offers received were below the upset price, order dated 18- 03-1988 came to be passed by the Recovery Officer of the Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank, granting the auction in favour of the State Government. The land, therefore, vested in the State Government, as is evidenced by Entry No.1442, dated 23-06-1988, that has been mutated in the revenue record. In spite of vesting of the land in the State Government in the year 1988, the petitioner asserts that he is still in possession of the land and is cultivating the same. As per the case of the petitioner, his financial circumstances have improved, and he has applied to the District Collector, Ahmedabad (respondent.2) for re-grant of the land in question, after cancelling the order dated 18-03-1988. The District Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 06-12-1995, on the ground that the petitioner is not personally cultivating the land. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned order, the petitioner filed a Revision Application, being Revision Application No.4 of 1996 before the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. Though the Revisional Authority has set aside the order of the Collector that was impugned, it has found that the land has vested in the State Government in the year 1988, and no steps have been taken by the District Collector and other Revenue Authorities to remove the unauthorized occupation of the petitioner therefrom. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present petition.
4. Mr.Mukesh A.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order of the Collector dated 06-12-1995, rejecting the application of the petitioner for re-grant of the land, is an unreasoned one, and has been passed ex- parte, without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. That, the very premise upon which the order has been passed is wrong as the petitioner is in continuous cultivation of the land, as indicated by the extracts of Village Form Nos.VII/XII, therefore, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected on this ground. It is further submitted that the possession of the petitioner over the land in question is not disputed by the revenue authorities, and it cannot be said that the petitioner is ineligible for re-grant of the land. That after the passing of the order dated 18-03-1988, vesting the land in the State Government, there is no material on record to indicate that the State Government has taken over possession of the land. The finding of the Principal Secretary (Appeals), to the effect that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation is, therefore, erroneous as possession has never been taken away from the petitioner. It is further contended that the State Government has made provisions for re-grant of the land as per policy, which ought to have been taken into consideration by the authorities while deciding the application of the petitioner. It is contended that the order of the Principal Secretary (Appeals), was never communicated to the petitioner, therefore, he was constrained to make an application on 14-07-2010, inquiring about the details of the Revision Application filed by him. It is only upon making inquiries that the petitioner came to know that an order has been passed in the Revision Application on 19-01-2000. That, the petitioner immediately applied for a certified copy, and thereafter has filed the petition, therefore, the delay has occurred due to circumstances, beyond the control of the petitioner.
5. On the basis of the above submissions, it is prayed that the petition be allowed.
6. Per contra, Mr.Pranav S.Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has strongly opposed the prayers made in the petition by submitting that, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19-01-2000 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), after a period of 12 years. That a perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the Principal Secretary (Appeals), had directed the revenue authorities to take steps within 30 days of the passing of the said order, to remove the unauthorized occupation of the petitioner from the land in question. It cannot, therefore, be said, as a matter of certainty, that the petitioner is still in possession of the land and is cultivating the same. It is further contended that land has vested in the State Government in the year 1988, and the petitioner has no legal right to claim re-grant of Government land. Earlier, the petitioner was granted the said land but could not repay the loan to the concerned Bank, resulting in the land being vested in the State Government, as per Mutation Entry No.1442 dated 23-06-1988. This entry has not been challenged by the petitioner, and has now attained finality. It is vehemently urged by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that after vesting of the land in the State Government, the petitioner has no right to occupy the land, and the Principal Secretary (Appeals), has rightly directed the subordinate revenue authorities to take immediate steps to remove the unauthorized occupation of the petitioner from the land in question. That, for the first time, after 12 years, the petitioner made an application to the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department on 14-07-2010 inquiring about the fate of the Revision Application filed by him. The impugned order reveals that the petitioner was represented by a learned advocate, who was heard before passing the order. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings of the Revision Application. It is next submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the order of the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department being a reasoned order, having been passed after taking into consideration all factual and legal aspects of the matter, does not warrant interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record.
8. The first glaring aspect that draws the attention of this Court is the delay in filing the petition. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 06-12- 1995 passed by the District Collector and order dated 19-01-2000 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), respectively, after a considerably long period of time. The explanation rendered by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the petition, is that he was not aware of the passing of the order dated 19-01- 2000 by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, and was under the impression that the Revision Application is still pending. It is averred in the petition that when nothing was heard about the revision application for a considerable period of time, the petitioner made inquiries and ultimately came to know regarding the passing of the order in the Revision Application. A certified copy of the said order was, thereafter, applied for, and the petition was filed.
9. This explanation of the petitioner is, unfortunately, belied from the record itself. During the pendency of the Revision Application before the Principal Secretary (Appeals), not only was the learned advocate for the petitioner heard, but he was also granted adjournments from time to time. Moreover, his submissions were also recorded. The impugned order has, therefore, been passed after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner. The more important aspect is, that there is an endorsement on the impugned order that copies have been sent to the concerned parties. In view of this, it cannot be assumed, as a matter of course, that the petitioner did not have knowledge of the passing of the said order. The application dated 14-07-2010 addressed by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary (Appeals), appears to be an after-thought, that has occurred in the year 2010, as a prelude to the filing of this petition, in the year 2011. The explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay of 12 years is, therefore, not convincing.
10. Apart from the aspect of delay, the facts of the case reveal that the land vested in the State Government pursuant to order dated 18-03-1988, passed by the Recovery Officer, Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank.
11. It is not disputed that the petitioner had taken a loan from the said Bank, which he could not repay. The auction of the land was held but as there were no bidders who bid higher than the upset price, the land was auctioned in favour of the State Government. This order has not been challenged by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Entry No.1442 was mutated on 23-06- 1988, in the revenue record, in favour of the State Government. This Entry has also not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. Both the order dated 18/03/1998 and Entry No.1442 have now attained finality.
12. The main grievance of the petitioner, as voiced in the petition as well as reiterated by the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, is that the impugned order of the Collector dated 06-12-1995, is a four-line order, containing no reasons, whatsoever. A grievance has also been ventilated that the said order has been passed without hearing the petitioner, and that the ground for passing of the order, namely, that the petitioner is not cultivating the land in question, is not correct. According to the petitioner, he is in continuous possession on the land and is cultivating the same, in spite of it having vested in the State Government. The grievance of the petitioner regarding the impugned order of the Collector dated 06-12-1995 has been taken care of, by the impugned order dated 19-01-2000, passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), who has not only set aside the order of the Collector but has, in terms, expressed extreme displeasure at the manner in which the subordinate authorities have permitted the petitioner to remain in unauthorized occupation of the said land, that now belongs to the State Government. The Principal Secretary (Appeals) has, by a detailed and reasoned order, directed the revenue authorities to immediately take steps, within 30 days, for removing the unauthorized possession of the petitioner over the land in question. As stated in the impugned order, the inaction of the subordinate revenue authorities in removing the unauthorized possession of the petitioner has tacitly helped the petitioner.
13. As there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner is no longer the owner of the land, and that the land has vested in the State Government as far back as on 18/03/1988, evidenced by a mutation entry to this effect, it cannot be said that the findings arrived at by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), are unreasonable, or against the record.
14 The learned advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal or indefeasible right that inheres in the petitioner for re-grant of the land to him, by the State Government. The petitioner could not repay the loan taken from the Bank that has led to the current state of affairs, and the State Government cannot be faulted on this account. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that now his financial position has improved, is not a valid ground for claiming re-grant of the land, as a matter of right, where none exists. The impugned order of the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department is a reasoned one and, on the facts of the case, does not deserve to be interfered with, by this Court. As no legal, fundamental or indefeasible right of the petitioner has been violated, the prayers made in the petition, cannot be accepted.
15. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is rejected. Rule is discharged.
(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J) arg