Heard Mr.Mehul H.Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that:
(1) By order dated 5-8-2004 the land in question has been allotted to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector after charging the highest market price, in addition to the natural price hike. The Revenue Entry No.4581 has been mutated in the record on 23-8-2004 pursuant to grant of the land. None of the conditions that have been imposed by the order dated 5-8-2004 have been breached by the petitioner.
(2) There is no restriction in the said order to the effect that the petitioner cannot apply for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes as market price has been charged.
(3) After six years, a Show Cause Notice has been issued by the Collector on 22-11-2010, stating that the grant of land to the petitioner is contrary to Government guidelines contained in Government Resolution dated 25-9-1997. Initiation of proceedings after six years is contrary to the well-settled principles of law that suo-motu proceedings cannot be initiated after an unreasonable period of time as has been held by this court and the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. The Show Cause Notice has culminated in the impugned order of the Collector dated 13-6-2011, wherein the Collector has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice by taking into consideration two other Resolutions dated 1-3-1960 and 15-2-1989, that have not been mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. Not only has the Collector directed the land to be forfeited to the State Government but has issued a further direction that possession be taken over from the petitioner.
(4) The Revisional Authority, by the impugned order dated 2-4-2012 (11-4-2012), has confirmed the order of the Collector but has also taken into consideration various extraneous aspects that do not find mention in the Show Cause Notice.
(5) That the land granted to the petitioner was Government waste land. It was unused and highly uneven. It is a strip of land between the land of the petitioner and the channel where rain water flows. No other person except the petitioner could have used the land in question. The petitioner has spent a huge amount of money and labour in making the land cultivable, and even today the petitioner is cultivating the land as per the assurance given to the Collector during the course of the proceedings.
Issue notice, returnable on 10-7-2012. Status-quo, qua the land in question and the possession of the petitioner, shall be maintained till then.
In addition to the normal mode of service, direct service is also permitted.
(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J) arg Top