MANEKBEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present group of petitions is arising out of the order passed by the respondent authority and in substance, since the grievance raised by the petitioners is common and the facts are almost similar, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have requested the Court to dispose of the petitions by common judgment. As a result of this, Special Civil Application No. 10501 of 2006 is treated as a lead matter and the facts are taken therefrom.

(2.) The case of the petitioner of the main petition is that the original land owner Ramanbhai Dhanjibhai executed a power-ofattorney in 1983 in favour of one Dudhiben Ramabhai who was stated to be his second wife and on the basis of the said power-of-attorney, mutation entry was also effected in the revenue record as entry No. 3579. Based upon the said power-of-attorney, Dudhiben executed sale transaction with respect to the land in question in favour of one Dahyabhai Nanabhai Patel and his family by way of execution of registered sale transaction dated 07.12.1989 and this registered sale transaction was also got mutated in the revenue record and mutation entry No. 3700, according to the petitioner, came to be certified. It is the case of the petitioner that after almost more than 19 years, respondent No.4 Kunvarben, daughter of first wife Premiben of deceased Rama Dhanji has initiated the proceedings for challenging mutation entry No. 3579 and surprisingly, according to the petitioner, the Deputy Collector vide order dated 17.12.2003 after examining was pleased to reject the request of respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed an application before the Collector -respondent No.3 herein. According to the petitioner, the order came to be passed on 02.11.2004 by respondent No.3, whereby the mutation entry No.3579 as well as entry No. 3700 came to be cancelled though there was no challenge to the later entry, as a result of which, being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department -respondent No.2 by way of preferring revision application under Rule 108(6)(A) of Bombay Land Revenue Rules. Respondent No.2 was pleased to reject the revision application vide order dated 23.03.2006 which order is made subject matter of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard learned senior advocate Mr. H. M. Parikh assisted by learned advocate Mr. Dhruvin Bhuptani for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Pathak and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Vrunda Shah for the respondent authorities.