(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI) 1 By way of the present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal, the State of Gujarat - respondent herein, has challenged the Order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Special Civil Application No. 14881 of 2010. While disposing of the said Special Civil Application, the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph 4 as under:
"4 In response to the notice issued by the Court, learned AGP Ms.Shah appeared for the State Government. Under the instructions, she stated that Government would consider the request of the petitioners for necessary permission with retrospective effect. The petitioners must, however, pay rent for their occupation of the land, if ultimately allowed."
2 In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned AGP, the learned Single Judge issued following directions which are referred to in paragraph-5 of the said judgment.
State Government shall consider and dispose of application of the petitioners dated 11.10.2010 for ex post facto permission to occupy the land bearing in mind further representations which may have been made thereafter by the petitioners.
On the condition that the petitioners shall continue to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to Gram Panchayat and also undertake before the Government to pay reasonable rent as per the Government policy separately for its occupation of the land from inception till the land would finally be vacated,the petitioners shall not be evicted from the said land for their operations be stalled in any manner till the Government takes any decision on the application of the petitioners.
State Government shall hear the petitioners before fixing the rent amount for its occupation.
3 Mr.
Nandish Chudgar, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondents has submitted that pursuant to the Order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.14881 of 2010, which is under challenge in this Appeal, the District Collector, Jamnagar, passed an order on 28.6.2011 and decided the rent.
4 Since the said decision was passed by the Collector without hearing to the present respondents i.e. original petitioners, the same was challenged by way of another writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.17236 of 2011. By an order dated 23.11.2011, the learned Single Judge has directed the authorities not to act on the Communication dated 12.11.12011 by which the Mamlatdar had called upon the petitioners to make the payment as per the Order dated 28.6.2011 within seven days.
5 After hearing the parties at length, by Order dated 29.2.2012, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application No.17236 of 2011 and quashed the Order dated 28.6.2011 by directing the authorities to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners before fixing the amount of rent. Both the orders passed in Special Civil Application No.17236 of 2011 are produced by the Advocate for perusal.
6 It appears from the paragraph-4 of the Order dated 29.2.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.17236 of 2011 that upon the written instructions from the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, dated 29.2.2012, the learned Assistant Government Pleader made a statement that opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioners before fixing the amount of rent of the land occupied by them.
7 In view of the subsequent developments and order passed in Special Civil Application No.17236 of 2011, the present Letters Patent Appeal has become infructuous since the order impugned in this Appeal is complied by the authority and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly as having become infructuous. No order as to costs.
8 In view of the aforesaid order passed in the appeal, the Civil Application No.3017 of 2011 does not survive and stands dismissed accordingly.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) (A.J. DESAI, J.) pnnair Top