Kachchh District Panchayat v. Nilesh Ramanbhai Patel
2011 LawSuit (Guj.) 774
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 – S. 65 – Letter Patent Appeal – Ld. Single Judge passed order to appellant to convert land for non-agriculture use for respondent –whether justified – appeal – held, appellant had no right to issue land for non-agriculture use – S. 65 would be helpful to grant permission to issue land for non agriculture use but with certain conditions and provisions of law – S. 65 granted powers of administrative and executive nature to collector which was delegated into District Panchayat and Taluka Panchayat – so when district panchayat and Taluka Panchayat exercised this power vested in it wasfull of acted in good faith and within powers vested in it in case of Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for Civil Service, three grounds were mentioned on which an administrative wing was controlled by judicial review, was (i) illegality (ii) irrationality and (iii) procedural impropriety – S. 65 could not give any right to any person to convert agriculture land for non agriculture use – there was water body beside the land so difficult to grant permission to use land for non agriculture use – plans represented by respondent could not get approval – regarding order passed by Ld. Single Judge, court had to see parameters of judicial review – court was restrained to see legality – it was not issue to decide that decision was right or wrong but concerned only with which decision was taken – Ld. Single Judge committed grave error in his conclusion that appellant had passed order with malicious intention to harass respondent 1 – order passed by Ld. Single Judge quashed and set aside – appeal allowed. [PARA-27, 28]
Pagi Aataji Kacharji v. State of Gujarat and Ors
2011 (2) GLH 487 = 2011 (2) GLR 1449
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (5 of 1879) – Secs. 135B, 135C, 135D & 135L – Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 – Rule 108 – In proceeding relating to entries in village record, the authorities determined question of title to the proceedings by holding that the lands were not of Service Inams, but of private ownership – Such determination or even examination of title was beyond the scope of R.T.S. proceedings – Held, the learned Single Judge had rightly affirmed the order of the Principal Secretary setting aside the finding of the lower authorities – Decision of the learned Single Judge, affirmed.[PARA-17, 27]
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (5 of 1879) – Secs. 135B, 135C, 135D & 135L – Entries in village record – In R.T.S. proceedings, revenue authorities are not empowered to adjudicate questions of title – It is only the Civil Court that can decide such rights and give a declaration – In spite of this settled position, revenue authorities “are committing the same mistake knowingly or unknowingly” – Court proceeded to “once again explain the entire process of law” – Case-lawanalysed.[PARA-28, 34 to 38]
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226 – High Court exercising writ jurisdiction “need not quash an orderif it gives rise to anotherlegal order”.[PARA-39 to 41]
Mahendrakumar Pitambarbhai Doshi v. Addl. Secretary, Revenue Dept. (Appeals) and Ors.
2013 (2) GLR 1495
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226 – Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (5 of 1879) – Sec. 211 – Exercise of suo moto revision powers after lapse of reasonable time – Collector cancelling N.A. permission in suo motu revision after 14 years – G.R. dated 14-11-1970 indicating Deputy Collector not authorised to grant N.A. permission – Held, where order is non-est law laid down in Raghav Natha’s case, [1969 GLR 992 (SC)] cannot be invoked – Further, petitioner who purchased land post-impugned order has no right to challenge same – Petition dismissed. [PARA-4.1, 5.2, 6.1]
Radheshyam Developers v. Official Liquidator of Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd.
2011 LawSuit (Guj) 635
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 – S. 135C, 135D – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – S. 31 – clarification and effecting of mutation of sale entry in revenue record – application for – held, once sale deed has been executed in favour of applicant, by virtue of provisions contained in S. 135C of the Code it is obligatory on part of Revenue Authorities to effect necessary entries in revenue record mutating name of applicant – in such situation it is not necessary for Revenue Authorities to follow procedure prescribed in S. 135D of the Code – if there is any dispute with regard to mutation entry disputing party shall approach competent Civil Court for avoiding such transaction as provided in S. 31 of Specific Relief Act – Revenue Authority cannot dispute validity of transaction in RTS proceedings – in aforesaid view, in cancellation of kachcha entry refusal to make final entry by respondent 2 and 3 is not justified – therefore, respondents 2 and 3 directed to mutate entry in revenue record in favour of petitioner in respect of properties sold to him and order of confirmation of sale and in respect of which sale deeds had already been executed by Official Liquidator – application disposed of. [PARA-12, 13, 14]
Mansingbhai Kahalsingbhai v. Surat Municipal Corporation (2000) 2 GLR 1061
Wherein it was held that, “the deemed permission cannot be inconsistent with the rules and regulations and no deeded permission can be said to have been granted against the relevant rules and regulations.
Sachin Udhyognagar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
2013 LawSuit (Guj) 582
Land Laws – Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 – S. 2(vii), S. 27 and S. 29 – Appellant, an Industrial cooperative society, purchased certain lands for setting up an industrial township – The State Government vide its notification specified the said land as being reserved for non-agricultural and industrial purpose – On 29.01.1994, the concerned Authority granted development permission under S. 29 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 – Subsequent thereto, SUDA vide order dated 4.12.1997 also granted development permission for plotting of the said lands and the layout plan was sanctioned – On the strength of the said development permissions, the Appellant carried out substantial development of the said land and allotted plots to around 1600 members of the appellant society – However, SUDA cancelled the development permission vide communication dated 11.08.2003 on the inter alia ground that one of the conditions of the development permission, which required N.A. permission to be obtained, was not complied with – Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred Special Civil Application No. 13259 of 2003, which came to be disposed of as withdrawn since SUDA conceded that no such permission was required – Appellant applied for permission – rejected by SUDA – Held, by single judge that, when the development permission for lay out and sub-plotting was granted, a condition for obtaining N.A. permission could not have been laid down since S. 117(a) of the said Act was still in force – S. 117(a) clearly specifies that once permission was granted under the Act, no other permission was required to be taken under any other law – further held, SUDA could not have insisted for obtaining the N.A. permission for the said land and granted the permission for lay out and sub-plotting in the year 1997 without insisting for N.A. permission – Appeal allowed [PARA-12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 26]
LAND LAWS – Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1948 – S. 65 – The Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1948 – is an Act which deals with collection of revenue and the purpose to which the land may be used – The said Code has no other social purpose except the regulation of the user of the lands – S. 65 of the Code provides that is the land is an agricultural land and is sought to be put to non-agricultural use, then prior permission of the competent Authority is required – However, S. 65 of the Code will apply provided the land is an agricultural land capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture and which is actually used for the purpose of agricultural operation – Whether a particular land is an agricultural land or not depends on the general nature or character of the land – In order to ascertain the general nature or character of the land, various factors such as (i) the development and use of the land in the adjoining area and the surroundings and situation of the land, (ii) physical characteristics of the land, and (iii) the intention of the owner as gathered from the relevant circumstances, may be considered – The entries in the revenue records and the assessment of the revenue by itself would not be conclusive proof to determine as to whether the land is an agricultural land or not – If the said factors are considered in the present case, then the plots in question cannot be termed as agricultural land and therefore the competent Authority would not be justified to insist for N.A. permission as a condition precedent – Further, as the land is deemed to have been put to non-agricultural use, the assessment of the revenue will also be on the basis of the same – Therefore, the apprehension of the State Government that there would be a loss of revenue is not well-founded. [PARA-30, 31, 32, 36]
Heirs and legal rep. of Decd. Dahyabhai Gordhanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
2013 LawSuit (Guj) 1855
Once permission under section 29(2) of Town Planning Act is granted, in view of section 117 of T.P. act, No permission under section 65 of B.L.R. Code is required.
Shaileshbhai Dahyabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
SCA No. 9057 of 2015
It has been held by the Hon’ble Court in para- 9 that, the Collector was required to decide application u/s. 65 of the Code – collector is not to go into question of title of the land and is expected to decide the application within reasonable time period available to him under the provision of Section 65 and it is not open to him to pass unreasonable long time on the grounds not available in law. It has been further held that, to keep application pending for long time just to ascertain from Mamlatdar whether any appeal or revision is filed against decree passed by the Civil Court where the State was not party is certainly no ground available in law for not deciding the application.– held, quashed the impugned order passed by the Collector. (para-9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Alkaben Hiralal Dave v. State of Gujarat
2011 LawSuit (Guj) 804
Applicant applied before the authority to convert the land to Non-agriculture use – Objection filed by the respondent regarding for mutating the name of the appellant in the revenue record pursuant to transaction of sale of land in question purchased by the appellant – dispute with regard to mutation entry is pending therefore no permission should be granted in favor of the appellant to convert the land into Non-agricultural use. – objection overruled – Appellant once again filed application for N.A – respondent filed objection before T.D.O. – No decision taken by the authority upon the application for N.A. – Writ of mandamus for directing authority to grant N.A. permission has been filed by the appellant – subsequently the petition was came to be dismissed by the Single Judge- Hence, filed Letters Patent Appeal – whereas, it was observed that, T.D.O. is obliged to pass necessary orders under Section 65 of the Code one way or the other – further observed that, TDO may either reject or grant application, but it cannot be said that, since Civil Suit is pending and objections have been raised no order would be passed on the application preferred by the appellant. It was further observed that, TDO could not have order to filed the application for non-agricultural permission without passing any order. – Hence, quashed the order of the Single Judge and subsequently directed to the TDO to hear all the concerned parties and to pass necessary order according to law.
Virendra Shivshankar Adhvaryu v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
SCA NO. 12375 of 2015
Wherein it has been held in para-7 of the judgment that, except the claim that the petitioner has got agreement to sale, there is no other right or interest claimed by the petitioner for the land in question. Further held that, pending Civil suit in court for execution of the sale deed in favor of the petitioner and for setting aside the sale deed which is already executed in favor of the respondent no. 15, the petitioner cannot be said to have any right or interest in the land in question for which N.A. permission is granted by the Collector. Further, after observing the legal provisions as well as the decision rendered Hon’ble High Court, it held been held in para-9 that, agreement to sale holder has got no interest in the land against third party till he gets any order from the competent Civil Court recognizing hisright in the land for which the Banakhatis executed.