DILIP PRAHLADBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri M.R. Mengdey, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat dated 31.08.2007 in Revision Application No.74/2006, by which the Revisional Authority has dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order dated 07.10.2006 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad in Revision Application 13/2006, by which the Collector, Ahmedabad confirmed the orders passed by the authorities below in quashing and setting aside/ cancelling the mutation entry No.6603 which was mutated in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 15.12.2003.

(3.) The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition in nut-shell are as under. The land in question being block No.320 situated at village Ghuma, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad was originally owned by one Sakraji Babaji and others. The said land came to be agreed to be sold to one Dr. Atul Choksi and Dr. Mahadeviya and agreement to sale was entered into between the parties on 21.04.1999. It appears that as Dr. Atul Choksi and Dr. Mahadeviya were not interested in purchasing the said land, petitioner purchased the land in question from the original owner by registered sale deed dated 15.12.2003 and Dr. Atul Choksi and Dr. Mahadeviya in whose favour there was agreement to sale, were made confirming party. That thereafter, petitioner purchaser approached the Talati cum Mantri for mutating his name in the revenue record and a kachcha entry No.6603 was posted and the name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record. It appears that thereafter, the original land owners objected to enter name of the petitioner in the revenue record before the Talati cum Mantri. The original owners approached the Mamlatdar, Daskroi by submitting RTS No.53/2004 and simultaneously the original owners also preferred one special suit No.79/2004 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Ahmedabad for the land in question against the petitioner as well as against Dr. Atul Choksi and Dr. Mahadeviya. That thereafter the dispute between the parties came to be resolved and the aforesaid civil suit No.79/2004 came to be withdrawn. That as the suit was withdrawn and the dispute was resolved, application was made to the Mamlatdar, Daskroi in RTS No.53/2004 submitting that the disputes between the parties has been resolved and therefore, it was requested to certify the mutation entry No.6603. That the Mamlatdar, Daskroi by order dated 26.06.2005 refused to certify entry No.6603 and refused to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue record on the ground that the land is being used for non-agricultural purpose and there is some illegal construction on the said land and that there is a breach of provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Daskroi dated 26.06.2005 passed in RTS No.53/2004, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Deputy Collector being RTS Appeal No.64/2004 under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, which came to be dismissed, against which petitioner preferred a further Revision Application before the Collector being Revision Application No.13/2006 which also came to be dismissed by the Collector, Ahmedabad against which petitioner preferred Revision Application No.74/2006 which has been dismissed by the Revisional Authority by impugned judgment and order. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the authorities below in not certifying the entry No.6603 and in not mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in his favour, petitioner has preferred present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.