By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), dated 7.9.2010/ 13.9.2010, whereby the application praying for stay of the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the Collector, Junagadh, has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are residing in village Loyej, Taluka Mangrol, Dist.Junagadh and the petitioner No.1 is the Head of Rabari (Sorathiya) community and as such, Dharma Guru of the Community of the whole District. They have applied for the land in question for the use of community as the land which is ordered to be given to the respondent No.2, without following well known canons of law that wide publicity is to be given and then, maximum price is to be fetched for the lands which are to be disposed of by the State Government.
2.1 It is stated that the land in question is the Dharmasthan of Mammai Mataji and is on the "Mamai Mataji No Madh". The land which is granted is a Gauchar land and it is used during the period of Navratri festival by lakhs of people who throng "Mommai Mataji No Madh" every day and the land is allotted for use of public for vehicle parking, for staying overnight and this tradition has continued since several decades.
2.2 It is further stated that the petitioner prayed for granting the land to them; they are not to construct anything on the land in question; the land is to be kept open and will be utilised for Gauchar land for the villagers, but the same is used during the Navaratri festival as mentioned hereinabove for community gatherings.
2.3 It is also stated that the land which is ordered to be granted to the respondent No.2 is a Gauchar land bearing Revenue Survey No. 691 paiki 13, admeasuring H-118-43-40 sq.mtrs., at village Loyej, Taluka Mangrol, Dist. Junagadh, out of which, 15,040 sq.mtrs. of land is ordered to be given to the respondent No.2 by divesting the same from Loyej Gram Panchayat in exercise of powers under section 108(4) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, vide order dated 3-3/5/2010 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector, Junagadh.
2.4 It is further stated that the petitioners and other community members have no objection if the respondent No.2 is given land which they want for educational purpose at any other place surrounding the area except the present piece of land and are not against the grant of land to the respondent No.2.
2.5 It is further the case of the petitioners that they have challenged the order dated 4-4/5/2010 by way of Revision Application before the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), being Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/JND/20 of 2010.
2.6 It is in this set of facts that, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel Mr.A.H.Desai for the petitioners submitted that it is an undisputed fact that in village Loyej, there is already lack of Gauchar land. There are reports of the Circle Officer, Mangrol, the Mamlatdar, Mangrol, and the Collector, Junagadh dated 16.3.2006. He has further submitted that the Collector has rejected the prayer for grant of this very land after verification of all the records that there is huge deficit of Gauchar land and therefore, the same cannot be granted. Learned counsel further submitted that by an application dated 5.4.2008, the petitioners prayed for granting the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 19/2/1 admeasuring Acre 2 - 20 gunthas. The petitioners also made another application on 11.12.2008. As per his submission, the respondent No.3-Collector, Junagadh has replied to the petitioners on 28.1.2009 that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner to grant the land from Survey No.691 paiki 13 cannot be granted, because, the said land is a Gauchar land.
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent No.2 challenged the order dated 16.3.2006 of the Collector, Junagadh, before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and vide order dated 21.10.2008 - 22.10.2008 passed in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/JND/19 of 2008, the order dated 16.3.2006 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Collector. According to learned counsel, the petitioners were not impleaded as party in the said proceedings.
3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide order dated 8/5-6-2009, the land in question was divested from the Gram Panchayat to the Head - State Government. Learned counsel has further submitted that they have also given a representation dated 24.5.2010 to the respondent No.3-Collector, Junagadh pointing out all the facts of the case. He further submitted that before the order of divesting was passed, a petition, being Special Civil Application No.5806 of 2010 was preferred before this Court praying that the action of the Government be quashed and set aside in giving the land in question. Vide order dated 7.5.2010, the said petition was withdrawn with a liberty to make a fresh representation to the Collector regarding the grievances raised in the petition and this Court had not made any orders on merits of the case. He submitted that thereafter the order dated 4.5.2010 was passed, against which the Revision Application was preferred. It is submitted by him that the action on the part of respondents Nos.1 and 3 herein is illegal and unconstitutional and that even Loyej Gram Panchayat in collusion with the member of the respondent No.2-Trust, has passed the resolution even before the application for grant of land was made by the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the said ground was also raised in the revision application which is pending before the revisional authority.
3.4 Learned counsel has further submitted that the provisions of Section 108(4) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and Section 30 of the Bomaby Land Revenue Code are not complied with in the present case. There is no question of public purpose in the land being given to the private education Trust which is having several educational institutions and even in the village, there are three schools from Std.I to Std.12, another school from Std.1 to college, and one Government Primary School. He has submitted that even as on date, there is less Gauchar land in the village and till 2009, the Collector, Junagadh had stated that the cattle is more than the land of Gauchar in the village and thus, there is scanty Gauchar land in the village. The petitioners have applied for latest certificate showing the total number of cattle head in the village. It is further submitted that after the order of the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), is made in the revision application preferred by the respondent No.2, no inquiry was conducted by the Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector and straightaway, the land is ordered to be given as if the revisional authority has directed compliance of the order for grant of land. It is submitted that while remanding the proceedings, instead of making inquiries, the land was straightaway ordered to be given by fixing the price without following any procedure whatsoever. It is also submitted that the authority has not considered that the land touching the national coastal highway and to submit that even coastal regulations (CRZ) Zone Regulations, though the said fact was mentioned in the memo of revision application and further that there is no change in the land in question and there is no structural change in the land in question and hence, injunction as prayed for is required to be granted.
3.5 Learned counsel has further submitted that the Circle Office, the Mamlatdar and the Collector who have consistently opined that there is scanty land as far as the Gauchar land in the village is concerned and in spite of that, the order is passed by the Collector who has no power to review his own orders granting the land to a private education Trust being the respondent No.2 herein though the petitioners have stated that the petitioners intend to keep the whole land vacant all the time for public at large for grazing the cattle but in spite of that, the revisional authority which had passed the earlier orders that the petitioners being impleaded as party, have assumed and presumed everything in favour of the respondent No.2 Trust and had passed the order of remand which ought not to have been done and the Collector, Junagadh has passed the order. It is further submitted by learned counsel that it is well settled law that the land can be used for public purpose and can be given to landless labourers, poor people, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people, who have no property, and in spite of this, the act on the respondent Nos.1 and 3 herein, in giving the land in question to a private educational institution having more than 12 institutions, cannot be termed to be a public purpose.
4. Having heard learned counsel, in my opinion, this petition is filed for challenging the order at Annexure.B to the petition, with regard to non-granting of the interim relief in the application filed by the petitioners with respect to the land in question. However, the revision application is still pending before the authority below, i.e. Secretary (Appeals). In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Collector at Annexure.B will be subject to the final outcome of the revision application. It is made clear that the petitioner may make necessary application to the Secretary (Appeals) before whom the revision application is pending to expedite hearing of the revision application and if such an application is moved by the petitioners, the authority will expedite the hearing and dispose of the said revision application preferably within one year from the date of receipt of such application.
5. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.