LODHA GULAMBHAI SHARIFBHAI Vs. MAMLATDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs:-

(2.) At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner has raised an issue on the ground that the petitioner though was very much a party in the proceedings before the Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal Case No.178 of 2011 and though the petitioner was vitally interested in the subject land, the petitioner was not even made a party in the subsequent revision proceedings initiated by the respondent No.8 herein. The revision thereafter, came to be rejected and the respondent No.8 had preferred Revision Application under Sec. 108(6-A) of the Land Revenue Code before the Secretary (Appeals) and it is before the Secretary (Appeals) that the parties before the forum i.e. respondent No.8 and three other private respondents settled the matter interse.

(3.) As against this, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.8 has raised preliminary objection regarding locus of the petitioner to challenge the order of the Secretary (Appeals), particularly on the ground that the entry which was brought in question was based on the relinquishment by the petitioner himself and therefore, before the Deputy Collector, the challenge to such entry made on the basis of relinquishment was only by one of the parties, whereas before the Deputy Collector, the petitioner had not objected to giving of such relinquishment of his rights and therefore, the petitioner had given up all his rights in connection with the subject land and therefore, was not a necessary party. He has alternatively submitted that even if the petitioner has to agitate an issue, he cannot straightway agitate the same by filing a writ petition as he will have to challenge the entry based on his relinquishment before an appropriate authority. Learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon the decision in the case of Mahiti Adhikari Gujarat Pahel v/s. State Information Commissioner, reported in, 2021 (4) GLR 3449 in support of his argument.