Disposed

Arvindbhai Somabhai Tadvi v. Collector of Baroda

Gujarat HC20 Aug 2015SCA/15806/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the Collector to execute a lease deed for land within ten weeks and issue an interim order permitting excavation only after the petitioner secures necessary environmental clearance.

What did the court decide?

The Collector was directed to execute the lease deed within ten weeks and permit excavation only after the petitioner obtains environmental clearance.

Arvindbhai Somabhai Tadvi Vs Collector of Baroda — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2015)

¶1

C/SCA/15806/2014 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15806 of 2014

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶9

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

ARVINDBHAI SOMABHAI TADVI....Petitioner(s)

¶12

Versus

¶13

COLLECTOR OF BARODA & 2....Respondent(s)

¶14

==========================================================

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

MR PS PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. R.D.KINARIWALA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3

¶17

==========================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

¶19

Date : 20/08/2015

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

C/SCA/15806/2014 JUDGMENT

¶23

Draft amendment dated 05/01/2015 is granted. To be carried out forthwith.

¶24

Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State Authority.

¶25

With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for its final disposal forthwith.

¶26

The petitioner, by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to execute lease deed for 0.1.09.48 hectors of land on Orsang river bed, opp. Gamtal Survey No.23 of village Kothiya, TalukaSankheda, District-Chhota Udepur as per the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as consequential order passed by the appellate authority thereafter.

¶27

The following facts emerge from the record of the petition:

¶28

5.1) The petitioner made an application for grant of lease for 0.1.09.48 hectors of land on Orsang river bed, opp. Gamtal Survey No.23 of village Kothiya, Taluka- Sankheda, DistrictChhota Udepur. The record further indicates that the Collector executed a lease deed for a period of three years on 30/10/2003 which came to be renewed from time to time.

¶29

5.2) The record further indicates that since truck was found to be overloaded by two metric tons and as boundary of lease area was not demarcated, the Collector issued notice on

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

C/SCA/15806/2014 JUDGMENT

¶32

15/09/2009 which culminated into order of cancellation of the lease, dated 25/01/2010, passed by the Collector.

¶33

5.3) It appears from the record that the said order was challenged before the appellate authority by way of Appeal No.74 of 2010 which came to be allowed vide order dated 31/07/2012. It further appears that as the said order was not implemented, the petitioner ultimately approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No.12539 of 2013 wherein this Court vide order dated 12/08/2013 observed thus:

¶34

“Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.

¶35

In spite of the order dated 31.7.2012 passed by Appellate Authority (Appeal), Department of Geology and Mining, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, respondent No.1 has not implemented the order as above. This Court has come across similar such cases of disobedience and defiance of the order of appellate authority by the District Collector, Vadodara, and therefore an aggrieved person has to invoke powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

If the order of appellate authority dated 31.7.2012 is not implemented within a week from the receipt of the notice of this Court, the District Collector, Vadodara shall personally remain present on returnable date.

¶37

Notice returnable on 21.8.2013.

¶38

Direct service is permitted.”

¶39

5.4) It further appears that pursuant to the said order, the Collector passed order directing present petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.5,000/- in order to regularize the lease deed on basis of which the petitioner withdrew said writ petition on 29/11/2013. Even thereafter nothing was done and therefore,

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

C/SCA/15806/2014 JUDGMENT

¶42

the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application (Contempt) No.2340 of 2014 which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to submit appropriate application in the earlier writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12539 of 2013 and the said contempt application came to be withdrawn vide order dated 03/09/2014. The record further indicates that thereafter the petitioner filed another Misc. Civil Application No.2644 of 2014 for further directions which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner on 26/09/2014 with a view to take appropriate action including filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore this petition is filed.

¶43

Mr. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that inspite of clear cut direction by the Collector, the lease deed has not be executed. Mr.Kinariwala, learned advocate also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.11595 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No.6768 of 2015 and submitted that appropriate direction be issued, as prayed for.

¶44

Per contra, Mr. Manan Mehta, learned AGP has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and has contended that the petitioner is required to obtain prior environmental clearance certificate and the petitioner was informed about the same vide communication dated 18/12/2013 and because of such reason the lease deed could not be executed.

¶45

It appears from the order passed in Special Civil Application No.11595 of 2015 that similar direction have been issued by this Court. Accordingly, the respondent authority

¶46

Page 4 of 5

¶47

C/SCA/15806/2014 JUDGMENT

¶48

shall execute the lease deed as early as possible preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, the excavation at site would be permitted only after the petitioner gets environmental clearance certificate from the competent authority.

¶49

The petition is, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Rule is made absolute only to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.

¶50

(R.M.CHHAYA, J.)

¶51

ila

¶52

Page 5 of 5

Arvindbhai Somabhai Tadvi v. Collector of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvindbhai Somabhai Tadvi v. Collector of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad

Dipaliben Rakeshbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Jay Gurudutta Girnari Maharaj College of Education Vs National Council for Teachers Education - Western Region

Siraj Harun Vaja Vs Designated Officer

Induben Mahendrabhai Rathava Vs State of Gujarat

Matka Raydhar Sidabhai Vs State of Gujarat