PATEL PRAVINKUMAR KESHAVLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.N. Ravani for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Hardik Mehta for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) By way of this petition the petitioners challenge an order dtd. 22/12/2020 passed by the respondent No.1 herein confirming an order dtd. 13/9/2019 issued by the District Collector, Gandhinagar.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Ravani would submit that the issue in question are three revenue entries with regard to inheritance certified in the year 2007 being entries No. 7627, 7629 and 7805. Learned Advocate Mr. Ravani would submit that initially by the first entry names of all the legal heirs of the original owner Kaluji Madhuji Gor had been entered into the revenue record, and whereas vide the second entry, three of the legal heirs had relinquished their rights over the property in question and by the last entry, again the names of all the legal heirs of the deceased Kaluji Madhuji Gor had been once again mutated in the revenue record. Learned Advocate would submit that the entries were taken up in suo-motu revision by the Collector, Gandhinagar after a period of four years, which itself was beyond the reasonable period as stipulated by this Court in various judgments and whereas vide an order dtd. 11/7/2012, the said entries were held to be in order by the Collector and they were directed to be kept as it is. Learned Advocate would submit that respondent No.4 herein, who has no relation whatsoever to the land in question, had raised an objection as against the order of the Collector dtd. 11/7/2012 by preferring a revision application before the revisional authority and whereas vide an order dtd. 19/6/2017 the revisional authority had remanded the matter back to the District Collector, Gandhinagar for a fresh decision. According to the learned Advocate, the revisional authority at the relevant point of time had also committed an error, more particularly on account of the fact that jurisdiction had been invoked by a person who did not have any locus. Learned Advocate would further submit that in the remand proceedings, the entries referred to hereinabove have been set aside by the Collector, Gandhinagar vide order dtd. 13/9/2019, which has been confirmed by the revisional authority vide order dtd. 22/12/2020, both the orders being impugned in the present petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Ravani would submit in this regard that as such the petitioners before this Court had purchased the land from the legal heirs of Kaluji Madhuji Gor, after paying appropriate premium for change of tenure of the land and whereas even though none of the legal heirs of Kaluji Madhuji Gor had taken any objection with regard to the entries referred to hereinabove yet, the respondent revenue authorities have set aside the entries, more particularly by giving one line finding that the same does not appear to be proper.