MADHUBEN Vs. PRABHATBHAI JIVABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Amar N. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Aum Kotwal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr.Hardik Mehta, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.28, 29 & 30 - State, through videoconferencing.

(2.) The petitioners, in this petition have challenged the order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Collector in RTS Revision No.148 of 2019, by which the Collector has partly allowed the Revision of the respondent No.1 and directed modification of the order dated 15.07.2019 of the Prant Officer qua Entry No.10478. The said Entry No.10478 was common qua two parcels of land bearing Block No.395 belonging to the respondent No.1 and Block No.397 belonging to the petitioners and was based on the common judgment dated 02.01.2018 of the 5 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in two suits being Special Civil Suit No.40 of 1998 regarding the land of the petitioner being Block No.397 and Special Civil Suit No.41 of 1998 regarding land bearing Block No.395 belonging to the respondent No.1 and others.

(3.) Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent No.1 who filed the Revision has no concerned with the petitioners' land bearing Block No. 397 and the said order is partially without jurisdiction. Mr. Joshi, learned senior advocate has further submitted that respondent No.1 who filed the Revision cannot be said to be "Person Aggrieved". The original RTS Appeal before the Prant Officer challenging the Entry No.10478 was filed by the respondent No.2 qua both the parcels of land. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2019 against which respondent No.2 did not file any Revision. However, the Revision was filed by respondent No.1 who has no concern with the land of the petitioners being Block 397. He has further submitted that even otherwise in the Revision of the respondent No.1, who has no concern with the land of the petitioners' land, the order affecting Entry No.10478 qua petitioners' land cannot be passed and there is a clear jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order qua land of the petitioners bearing Block 397. He has further submitted that the Collector has failed to appreciate that the Revision was filed by the respondent No.1, who was concerned with land bearing Block No.395 and has no concern with the Block No.397, belonging to the petitioners and the respondent No.1 had no locus standi to challenge the order dated 15.07.2019 qua land bearing Block No.397 belonging to the petitioners.