JILUBHAI HATHIBHAI GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have assailed the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Wadvan Sub Division, Surendranagar in Fragmentation Case No.3/2011-12 as well as order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Revision Application No.47 of 2017 whereunder Entry No.3924 of Family Settlement is set aside and the subject land is restored to respondent No.4 herein.

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are that the family settlement took place between the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in respect of ancestral land bearing survey No.225/3. Revenue Entry No.3924 came to be mutated in the Revenue Record on 03.10.1998 in respect of the family settlement. The land admeasuring 2 acre 31 gutha came to the share of respondent No.6 herein who sold the land to the petitioner by registered sale deed in the year 2002. A Mutation Entry No.4434 came to be mutated in Revenue Record on 01.04.2004 in respect of the sole transaction. The Deputy Collector, Wadwan Sub Division, Surendranagar initiated proceedings vide Fragmentation Case No.3/2011-12 under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("Fragmentation Act" for short) in the year 2011-12 after delay of 13 years of execution of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The proceedings were initiated on the ground that the distribution of land amongst the respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the basis of family settlement was in the breach of Fragmentation Act. The Deputy Collector by order dated 28.06.2013 set aside the family settlement being contrary to the Fragmentation Act and set aside Entry No.3924 and restored the entire land bearing survey No. 225/3 in the name of respondent No.4 herein. Though the petitioners had purchased the subject land by registered sale deed dated 01.06.2002 and consequent Entry No.4434 was mutated in the revenue records, the Deputy Collector passed the order without impleading the petitioners as parties in the proceedings. The petitioners, inadvertently, challenged the order of the Deputy Collector before the Collector, Surendranagar by order dated 10.07.2018 dismissed the Revision Application as the revision before him was incompetent and the order of the Collector was challengeble under Rule 108 (6) of Land Revenue Rules before the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department, Ahmedabad. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court to challenge the orders of the authorities below.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. There is no representation on behalf of rest of the respondents despite service of notice of rule.