(1.) THE petitioner by this petition is challenging the order passed by the District Collector and its confirmation thereof by the State Government whereby the District Collector as per the impugned order at Annexure-C has remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector.
(2.) SHORT facts are that the Revenue entry was mutated in the revenue record based on the transaction of sale of the property in question. One Suryabala Shivshankar Upadhyay was the original-owner of the property. Out of the total property, a particular portion was sold vide registered sale-deed dated 28.09.1970 and the remaining portion bearing Census Nos.323 and 324, as per the petitioner was sold to one Ranmalsinh Hemsinh Thakor. The petitioner thereafter purchased the said property bearing Census Nos.323 and 324 from Ranmalsinh Hemsinh Thakor. As per the petitioner, Respondent No.2 got the entry mutated on her name as per the purchaser of the property of the entire area and not a portion which was purchased by Respondent No.2. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector against the said entry and the Deputy Collector vide order dated 30.03.1993, directed for deletion of name of Ranmalsinh Hemsinh Thakor and further directed to include the name of the petitioner. The matter was carried in appeal by the Respondent No.2 before the Collector and the District Collector vide order dated 27.09.1993 set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and the remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector, since, the District Collector found that the requisite notice has not been served upon the parties before making entry in the record. The matter was further carried in revision by the Respondent No.2 and the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2000. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition.
(3.) IT is undisputed position that the petitioner at the relevant point of time did not challenge the order of the District Collector, whereby the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector either by preferring the revision before the State Government or otherwise. Apart from the above, the order of the District Collector which has been confirmed by the State Government in revisional jurisdiction shows that the matter has been remanded on the ground that the requisite notice was not served and the matter is to be further examined by the Deputy Collector. When the Deputy Collector has to consider all contentions of the parties including that notice has been served or not, it cannot be said that any prejudice would have caused to the petitioner by the impugned order, Had the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, he would prefer the revision before the State Government, but such has not been preferred.