MEHMUDAKHATUN Vs. AARIFKHAN RASIDKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article-227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02-12-2019 passed by the Deputy Collector, Olpad Prant in Revision Case No.11/2019 and 12/2019. By the aforesaid order, the order of Mamlatdar dated 19-09-2019 was reversed. The aforesaid order was in favour of the petitioners. The dispute pertains to right of way on land bearing Survey / Block No.139/2 and 139/3 to reach the land of the petitioner's land, which is Survey/ Block No. 139/1 of Village-Orama, Taluka-Olpad, District-Surat.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the respondent Nos. 8 and 9, who claim to be subsequent purchasers from the original owner, were aware of the present proceedings, even before the Mamlatdar and before the Revision Forum. However, these two persons chooses not to join the litigation and continued to contest through the original owner. The decision of the Mamlatdar was in favour of the petitioners, which was challenged by way of Revision by the original owner and at that stage also, the respondent Nos.8 and 9 subsequent purchasers, did not contest.

(3.) Having heard the learned Advocate for the parties, having considered the submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, from the order passed which is in remand by the Mamlatdar, it appears that there was no contest on any part and there is no reference to any objection, apparently, the order has been passed as if all the parties have agreed. It is evident that even when the order of the Mamlatdar was passed, at that time the original owner had disposed of the land through which the road is contemplated to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were added in the Revision as Opponent Nos.8 and 9. In the Revision Application, it is categoric finding of facts that though the petitioners were aware of the transaction between the original owner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that transaction was also objected by the petitioners neither before the original proceedings, petitioners had not joined the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as opponents.