SCA/13585/2000 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.13585 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- =================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO =================================================== NURIBEN DOSANBHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s) =================================================== Appearance : MR DK ACHARYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR KETAN DWIVEDI, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5. MS RUKHSANA M PATHAN for Respondent(s) : 6, MR MEHUL H RATHOD for Respondent(s) : 6.2.1 =================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date : 18/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (1) This petition has been preferred challenging order dated 15.10.1999 made by the revisional authority confirming order made by Collector, SCA/13585/2000 2/5 JUDGMENT Banaskantha on 18.03.1996, which in turn confirmed the order of Deputy Collector, Palanpur made on 16.04.1995 declaring that the petitioner was not entitled to land bearing 218-90-49 sq. mtrs. at Village Sherpura (Majadar), Taluka Vadgam as Wada land and the order made on 04.06.1994 by the Mamlatdar, Vadgam was bad in law. (2) Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. It was submitted that as recorded in the panchnama the petitioner, who is a widow, has been using the subject land since more than 60 years as Wada land and, therefore, was entitled to seek declaration of the said land as Wada land. That the petitioner accordingly made an application to the Village Panchayat. The Village Panchayat vide resolution No.24 dated 25.10.1993 proposed granting of the said land as Wada land. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar made the order on 04.06.1994 granting the said land as Wada land. That respondent No.6 SCA/13585/2000 3/5 JUDGMENT challenged the same by way of appeal before the Deputy Collector on the ground that the said land was required for the purposes of playground for a school despite the fact that on the day the Village Panchayt had passed the resolution the land was not in possession of any one. It was therefore submitted that the orders made by the Deputy Collector, Collector and the revisinoal authority in holding that the land in question cannot be treated as Wada land be quashed and set aside. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the matter be restored to the file of the authority for adjudicating the issue afresh. (3) As can be seen from record all the authorities, commencing from the Deputy Collector, have concurrently found that the land in question was not registered as Wada land as per the Wada Sanhita, incorporating Rules for Wadas in Gamtal and Simtal by way of resolution No.Vadal-1079-31488-K dated 25.04.1988. The said Rules specifically require registration SCA/13585/2000 4/5 JUDGMENT of a Wada and the procedure for the same has been prescribed. In the present case admittedly, before the Mamlatdar passed the order on 04.06.1994 a subsequent resolution dated 12.12.1983 bearing No.Vadal-1083/3322-K was issued by the revenue department whereby it was instructed that no fresh / new Wada should be approved in Simtal area. Therefore, it is apparent that the Mamlatdar could not have made the order on 04.06.1994 granting the land in question as Wada land. (4) The orders of the authorities, including the order made by the revisional authority, has taken these two material aspects into consideration, namely, non-registration of the Wada land, and secondly, the prohibition imposed by the subsequent resolution dated 12.12.1983. In the circumstances, it is not possible to find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders made by the respondent authorities. The photographs produced by the petitioner cannot be given precedence over the SCA/13585/2000 5/5 JUDGMENT prohibition imposed in law and, therefore, the same cannot be considered as being an overriding factor for the purposes of upholding order made by the Mamlatdar. (5) Hence, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, the petition does not merit acceptance and no interference is warranted in the order made by the revisional authority. The petition is accordingly rejected. RULE discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- [D. A. MEHTA, J] *** B h a v e s h *