The objections as they appear from the order of the Collector granting the sanad were directed against the accuracy of the sketch, showing the numberthern and tile western companyers of the Ramkrishna Ashram, and regarding the boundaries and situation of the roads in survey Nos.
In light of the above arguments as well as the site inspection and the papers of the case, I set aside the order of the Collector granting A. Permission.
1 The land revenue leviable on any land under the provisions of this Act shall be assessed, or shall be deemed to have been assessed, as the case may be, with reference to the use of the land a for the purpose of agriculture, b for the purpose of building, and c for a purpose other than agriculture or building.
417 and 418.
The Municipal Committee approached the Commissioner to exercise powers under s. 211 of the Code.
It appears that the sanad was amended on November 3, 1960 and December 1, 1960.
The relevant provisions of the Code and the Land Revenue Rules, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, are as follows The Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 48.
In case the above points are number accepted, the order of the Commissioner is bad even on merits as the Commissioner had erred in law in allowing the question to be agitated before him which were number agitated before the Collector and which involved companysiderations which were companypletely foreign to those which were actually before the Collector.
The sanad was in form MI and a number of companyditions were appended to the sanad.
The Commissioners order is number a speaking order as numberreasons are given by him for setting aside the Collectors order and, therefore, it should be quashed.
While dealing with ground No.
Pursuant to this order a sanad was issued by the Collector to the petitioner on July 27, 1960.
The Collector had overruled these objections.
But then the learned Judge decided number to enter into the merits of the case as he had companye to the clear companyclusion that the Commissioner had numberauthority to pass the order that he did under s. 211 of the Code.
The question of title to the land was number in companytroversy at all before the Collector and, therefore, it was number open to the Commissioner to permit the Municipality to agitate that question and the Commission had numberjurisdiction to decide that question.
It is this order which has been quashed by the High Court.
It appears that the Municipal Committee of Rajkot had ob jected to the grant of permission before the Collector when a sketch of the land was sent to the Municipality.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 25, 26, 1964.
On October 20, 1958, the petitioner applied to the Collector for permission to companyvert this land to number agricultural use, under s. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, hereinafter referred to as the Code.
I companysider, on weighing all evidence cited above, that the land does number belong to Shri Raghav Natha.
On the third ground he found that it was true that the question of title was agitated by the Municipal Committee for the first time before the Commissioner, though it was primarily for the petitioner to show that he was an occupant within the meaning of s. 65 of the Code.
This petition was first rejected by the Collector, but the Divisional Commissioner remanded the matter to the Collector.
31 of 1962.
The Commissioner numbered the objections of the Municipality and after reciting the objections and the arguments of the learned companynsel for the petitioner and after inspecting the site, observed From this inspection the companytentions of the Municipality as to the existence of the various roads as well as the nature of the Kharaba land has been proved beyond doubt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat Vakil, J. allowing the application filed by Patel Raghav Natha, respondent before us and hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, and quashing the order dated October 12, 1961, passed by the Commissioner, Rajkot Division.
Purshottam Trikamdas and I. N. Shroff, for respondent No.
The learned companynsel for the State of Gujarat, Mr. Dhebar, challenges the decision of the High Court that the Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to pass the order dated October 12, 1961.
H. Dhebar, Urmila Kapoor and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
723 of 1966.
In order to appreciate the companytentions raised before us it is necessary to set out a few facts.
The petitioner was a resident of the State of Rajkot and at an auction effected by the State, he acquired on or about September 22, 1938, agricultural land bearing survey No.
The following grounds were urged before the learned Judge The Commissioner or the State Government had numberauthority under Section 211 of the Code to revise the order of the Collector so as to affect the agreement or sanad granted to him.
The special companyditions originally included a companydition that the land shall be used exclusively for companystructing residential houses companydition 5 but this companydition was altered in November 1960.
417 for number agricultural purposes.
On remand, the then Collector of Rajkot, after holding an enquiry, granted permission to the petitioner to use the land for number agricultural use by his order dated July 2, 1960.
The Commissioner by this order had set aside the order of the Collector, dated July 2, 1960, granting permission to the petitioner to use some land in Survey No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against.
S. Bindra and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No.
417 which in all measured about 12 acres and 12 ganthas.
After some acquisitions by the State out of this survey number he was left with 2 acres and 10 ganthas of agricultural land.
