PATEL NAVINBHAI CHANDUBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed by the petitioner Navinbhai Chandubhai Patel, challenging the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/VDD/75/2018, whereby the respondent No. 2 has confirmed the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the respondent No. 3 - Collector in Appeal being No.RTS/Appeal/183/2016.

(2.) It appears that the lands bearing Block / Survey Nos. 242/2, 244/1, 243 and 292/1 situated at village Dhavat, Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara belonged to one Chunibhai Patel. After the demise of said Chunibhai, a partition had taken place in the family and the said lands came into the share of his son Jayanti Chunibhai Patel, the husband of the private respondent No. 6. According to the petitioner, the said Jayantibhai had no children and the petitioner was taking care of the said Jayantibhai, and therefore, the said Jayantibhai had executed a family arrangement deed by which he had given consent for mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the said lands on 1.2.2001. The said Entry being No.3330 was certified on 08.03.2001. The said Jayantibhai expired in the year 2006, however, during his lifetime, the respondent No.6 i.e. his wife filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector against mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. It appears that thereafter the matter had travelled back and forth and there were many orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Collector and S.S.R.D. during the period from 2009 to 2014.

(3.) Ultimately, on the remand of the matter by this Court vide the order dated 01.12.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.2647 of 2014, the District Collector further remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector vide order dated 31.12.2015. The Deputy Collector rejected the appeal of the private respondent vide the order dated 5.5.2016, against which the respondent No.6 preferred an appeal before the respondent Collector. The said appeal came to be allowed by the respondent Collector vide the order dated 26.2.2018, and directed to cancel the Entry No.3330 from the revenue record. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision Application being No.75 of 2018 before the respondent No.2, who vide impugned order dated 1.2.2020 rejected the said revision of the petitioner, and further directed that the orders passed by the Civil Courts in the pending Civil Suits shall be binding to the parties. Hence the present petition has been filed.