JADEJA DESHALJI MEGHJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the petitioners for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the lower Authority and it is prayed that Entry No.549 be restored.

(2.) THE short facts appear to be is that: the land in question bearing Survey No.172, ad-measuring 4 Acres and 11 Gunthas situated at Vadva-Kaya, Tal. Nakhatrana, District: Kutch (herein after referred to as 'land in question') was under mortgage of Patel Ukeda Kanji. Petitioners redeemed the mortgage on 12.8.1988 and therefore, they moved an application for transfer of the land on their name being legal heirs of Meghji Waghji. The revenue entry was mutated on 14.3.1989 vide Entry No.549 by Revenue Secretary of the Village. The objections were filed by the deceased Khimaji Waghji and son Dipsangji Khimaji. Therefore, the entry was treated as disputed entry and the matter was referred to Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar vide order dated 24th October, 1989 found that for the subject matter of the land together with the other land, Civil Suit No.185 of 1988 is filed by Khimji Waghji and his legal heirs and therefore, it was directed for deletion of Entry No.549 dated 14.3.1989 and it was further observed that after the decision of the Civil Court, the appropriate revenue entry be mutated in the revenue record. The matter was carried in appeal by the petitioners before the Deputy Collector being Appeal No.12 of 1990. The Deputy Collector concurred with the view of Mamlatdar and dismissed the appeal. However, he issued further direction that until the decision of the Civil Court, the entry be mutated on the name of all the legal heirs of deceased Waghji Jasaji. The petitioners further carried the matter before the Collector and said appeal vide order dated 20th February, 1992 was dismissed. The petitioners also carried the matter before the State Government by way of revision and the said revision vide order dated 31st August, 1999 at Annexure-B had been dismissed. Under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(3.) HEARD Mr.Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.Tanmay B.Karia, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.Jadeja, learned advocate for respondent No.6. As per Mr.Mehul Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, respondent No.5 Jadeja Khimji Waghji has expired but he is already represented by his son Jadeja Dipsangji Khimaji and the said aspect is not disputed by Mr.Jadeja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. The submissions are made by Mr.Jadeja.