RAKESH SHIVBHAGWAN AGRAWALA Vs. TALATI CUM MANTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order passed by all the lower authorities, namely, Deputy Collector, Dist.Collector and the State Government in exercise of their powers under Gujarat Land Revenue Rules.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that one entry was mutated being Entry No.2607 dated 27.5.1983. After the mutation of the said entry the same was certified on 30.6.1983. Thereafter, suomotu powers were exercised and as per the notice dated 1.8.84 the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the entry should not be cancelled. The main ground of the notice was that no permission under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is obtained. Another ground was that the sale deed is not produced. The third ground was that notice under section 135D of the Act is not served upon the person concerned and the fourth ground was that the land is belonging to Devastnam and the sale is shown to have been made by the pujari and therefore neither the pujari has power to sell the land nor in any case the said sale can not be made without permission of the Charity Commissioner. Ultimately, the order dated 8.9.84 was passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara whereby the said entry was cancelled. Against the said decision of the Deputy Collector appeal being Appeal No.4/87 was preferred and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 14.8.87 against which revision preferred by the petitioner herein being Revision Application No.7/89 and the said revision ultimately by order dated 21.11.1990 is dismissed.

(3.) It may be noted tha that the appellant before the Deputy Collector who preferred Appeal No.5/87 claimed to be the purchaser of the land in question had challenged the decision of the appellate authority before the State Government by preferring Revision Application No.6/89 and the said revision is also dismissed but no writ petition is preferred before this court nor any reference is made in the present petition about the same. The order came to be passed by all the authorities mainly on the ground that no permission of the competent authority is obtained under the Act, the sale deed was not produced before Talati and that no notice under section 135D of the Bombay Revenue Code was served upon the person concerned and it is also observed by the authorities that no permission of the Charity Commissioner was obtained and in any case the sale could not have been made by the pujari.