RAJABHAI PATABHAI SUTHAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs :-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the dispute pertains to land situated at Revenue Survey No. 917 (old no. 522 p1) admeasuring 00-35-20 Haq-Ra-Sq.Mts., out of total 01-90-26 Haq-Ra-Sq.Mts., and Survey No. 918 (old no. 522 p2) admeasuring00-43-71 Haq-Ra-Sq.Mts., out of total 01-38-31 Haq-Ra-Sq.Mts., (total 00-78-91 Haq-Ra-Sq.Mts.,) of Village : Lakhni, Taluka : Lakhni ,District : Banaskantha. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was originally belonging to one Rabari Kalaji Lakhmanji and vide order dated 25.11.1993, passed in Ganot Case No. 804 of 1993, Mamlatdar and ALT, declared Morakhiya Hiralal Chunilal as the Tenant of the land in question. The said order was challenged by the State Government before the Deputy Collector, by filing Revision Application No. 35 of 1994 and vide order dated 06.08.1996, the said Revision Application was allowed and the order of Mamlatdar and ALT was set aside. Against the said order, Morakhiya Hiralal Chunilal preferred Revision Application being No. TEN/BA/937/1996 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad vide order dated 17.06.2010 allowed the Revision Application and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector. With respect to this, an entry was also then made being Entry No. 4119 on 09.07.1990 and mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and then the land was converted into old tenure and to that effect also, an entry was made being Entry No. 4211 dated 27.09.2010. It is further the case of the petitioner that subsequently, Entry No. 4701 on 19.10.201 was mutated for heirship of Morakhiya Hiralal Chunilal and then the petitioner purchased the said land through registered sale document dated 04.02.2019 and the said registered sale deed was also mutated in the revenue record being Entry No. 6977 on 10.06.2019 and the same came to be certified on 21.08.2019. The petitioner has further asserted in the petition that the State authority filed Special Civil Application No. 3062 of 2019 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 24.07.2019 and by virtue of this, the order has attained finality and against which, no further appeal is filed by either party or even the State authority.

(3.) Two-fold submissions have been made initially by Mr. Nishit Gandhi, learned advocate representing the petitioner, that no opportunity of hearing was given in any form to the petitioner while passing the impugned order and further, there is no dispute with regard to the land in question in any form and, therefore, the order seem to have been passed without proper application of mind. It is the case of the petitioner that had the opportunity being given, this order could not have been passed by the authority. It has been emphatically submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that no suits are pending with respect to this very land question and on the contrary, the petition filed by the State authority on earlier occasion came to be dismissed and by relying upon certain decisions, which are attached to the petition compilation from page 44 onward, a contention is reiterated that before passing any order upon an application, at least, a bare minimum opportunity ought to have been given, which, in this case, has not been extended. Hence, on this very count, the petition deserves to be allowed.