1. By way of this petition, the State has challenged the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, dated 18.11.1999, in Review Application No. TEN/ AA/7/98, whereby the order passed by the Collector, Mahesana dated 25.11.1997 is set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Mahesana dated 20.03.1997 is restored. The matter relates to land acquisition proceedings.
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Neeraj Soni for the State and Mr. B.D.Karia, learned advocate for the respondent.
3.1 It is contended by Mr. Soni, learned AGP that the Collector had passed a reasoned order and there was no reason for the tribunal to interfere with the said order. It is sought to be pointed out that entire land in question was acquired as reflected in the order of the Collector and nothing was left, with the respondent, the original land owner, so far as survey number in question was concerned. In his submission the order passed by the tribunal be interfered with by this court.
3.2 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Mr. Karia, while referring to the map as well as other material on record has pointed out that the land owner does not dispute the land which is legally acquired from him but the order of the collector encroaches upon his land which is not acquired. He has taken the court through the detailed calculation reflected in the order passed by the Deputy Collector and has contended that the error in the order of the collector was corrected by the tribunal and this court may not interfered in the said order.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I find that the dispute is not whether the possession of the land which is acquired by the State is taken by the Government or not, but the dispute is, whether, over and above land for which acquisition proceedings were taken, the left out land, which was legitimately with the land owner, that land could be said to have been acquired without following proceedings under the law. Thus, in effect, it is more an arithmetical calculation issue. Collector in his order fell in error by treating the land which was left with the land owner as the land duly acquired by the Government and for that no reason is recorded, no calculation is shown and the same is, after going through the record, corrected by the Tribunal. By the impugned order of the Tribunal, the order passed by the Collector, Mahesana is quashed and thereby the order passed by the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Mahesana dated 20.03.1997 is restored. The same is on record as AnnexureB. Having gone through the said order of the Deputy Collector, I find that the contents of the said order reflects due application of mind by the Deputy Collector, he has shown detailed calculation under each head, what was the land available and to what extent the land is acquired by the government. Those calculations are recorded in detail in the order itself and thereby ultimately he came to the conclusion that 473.18 sq mtr of land was not acquired. Collector, while interfering in the said order has neither given any reason how the calculation recorded by the Deputy Collector was erroneous nor has given any other calculation on his own. On the basis of the material before the tribunal, tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no error in the order of the Deputy Collector and also that the order of the Collector was erroneous. It is required to be noted that after hearing learned advocate for the land owner and the Government Pleader both, the order was passed by the tribunal, the details of which are reflected in para 2 of its order. This Court, while examining the order passed by the revisional authority, finds no error in it.
5. For the reasons recorded above, this court finds no force in this petition. The same is dismissed. Interim relief, stands vacated. Rule is discharged.
amit (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)