HAMIRBHAI KUBERBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, being legal heir of deceased Hamirbhai Kuberbhai Solanki has made an attempt to challenge the impugned orders passed by the authorities below and to be precise, the following reliefs are prayed for in the petition:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that a land situated at Survey No.227 of village Nichi Mandan of Taluka Morbi, admeasuring 6 Acre was allotted on Santhani basis to one Hamirbhai Kuberbhai by the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 31.1.1968 and the entry to that effect was mutated in the revenue record on 8.5.1968 as entry No.658. The said entry came to be certified on 20.9.1968. Later on, according to the petitioner, a Rajinama was stated to have been given by said Hamirbhai Kuberbhai to the Mamlatdar, Morbi with respect to 4 Acres of land out of 6 Acres and pursuant to the said Rajinama having been approved, entry was mutated in the revenue record, being entry No.746 dated 25.8.1970 and the said entry after due process came to be certified on 13.1.1971. The applicant as a result of which, had filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Morbi under Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on 8.10.2015 assailing the said entry and learned Deputy Collector rejected the said appeal filed by the petitioner and ordered to maintain entry No.746 which was certified on 13.1.1971. Feeing aggrieved by the said, the petitioner approached learned Collector, Morbi by way of further appeal, being Appeal No.20 of 2015-16, which came to be dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 19.3.2018 by asserting that Shri Hamirbhai Kuberbhai did not give any Rajinama and being a concocted version by the authority. A further revision petition came to be filed before the Special Secretary (Appeals) and the said revision application was registered as Revision Petition No.3 of 2019, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2019, which is made the subject matter of the present petition.

(3.) When the petition is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. R.N. Jadav appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Mamlatdar at the relevant point of time had no jurisdiction to pass such kind of order and further, for want of jurisdiction, the order can be said to be non est in the eye of law and cannot be given any effect to. It has further been contended that the Rajinama letter is nothing but a concocted version against the petitioner and in absence of any such letter on record, it is not proper on the part of the authority to pass the impugned order. It has further been contended that no valid reason has been assigned while passing the order. Mr. Jadav has relied upon the two decisions reported in 2000(1) GLR 580 and 1996(2) GLR 688 and has further contended that non est order can be assailed at any time and has stated that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same be quashed and set aside.