(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI) 1. By way of this present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants - original petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 18.11.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9239 of 1993 by which the learned Single Judge has confirmed the orders passed by three authorities of the Revenue Department.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 In the present case, the auction was held on 21st January 1988 by the Sarpanch-respondent no.4 herein. It is the case of the authorities that it was after necessary permission was granted by the Taluka Development Officer the auction was held. Subsequently, the Taluka Development Officer sanctioned sanction the auction dated 21st January 1988 on 29th April 1988. The petitioners being aggrieved by the outcome of the auction, challenged that auction before the Deputy Collector by filing Appeal No.42 of 1988, which came to be allowed by the Deputy Collector by order dated 30th December 1988 whereby the Deputy Collector was pleased to quash the order of auction and remitted the matter to the Taluka Development Officer, Palanpur for ascertaining as to whether the land in question is a 'Gamtal,' a 'Gauchar' or a Government land and if there is unauthorized possession of the petitioners, the same should be removed and thereafter, fresh decision be taken.
2.2 Against this order of the Deputy Collector, the affected parties, viz. respondents no.5 to 9 filed an appeal which came to be decided by the Collector by judgment and order dated 29th January 1991, who allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 30th December 1988 and confirmed the order sanctioning the auction sale by the Taluka Development Officer dated 29th April 1988. Against this order of the Collector, the present petitioners preferred the appeal before the SSRD, who decided the same by judgement and order dated 7th October 1992, who confirmed the order of the Collector dated 29th January 1991. In the result the order of the Taluka Development Officer dated 29th April 1988 sanctioning the auction stood confirmed.
3. We have heard learned counsel Ms.Bhoomi Thakore for the appellants, learned AGP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, learned counsel Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the respondent No.4 and learned counsel Mr.M.C.Barot for the respondents No.8 and 9. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the authorities below. The learned Single Judge in para 6 of the judgment has observed as under.
“6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the authorities below have committed error in not considering the important aspect of the matter, namely, the land is situated adjacent to the residential premises of the petitioner, that the petitioners are in possession of the premises and that the requisite procedure was not followed by the authorities-Sarpanch in holding the auction.
None of these contentions found favour with the authorities. Besides, all these questions are the questions of disputed facts and therefore, this Court refused to go into any of these questions. Even otherwise, it appears from the record that the petitioners encroached upon the land and then claimed the land by way of indulgence from the authorities by saying that the land be given to them by a deeming auction or by fixing a price for the same taking into consideration the fact that the land is adjacent to their residential premises and that they are in possession thereof. The learned advocate could not satisfactorily convince this Court that any gross illegality or irregularity is committed in holding the auction.“
4. We are in agreement with the observations made by learned Single Judge in para 6 of the judgment, and in the present case, the appellant could not show his legal right over the disputed property except that he was in possession of the property before the auction which took place in the year 1988 which was adjacent to his own property. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for interference by this Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(V.M. SAHAI, J.) (A.J.DESAI, J.) syed/