KIRITBHAI CHUNILAL JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dtd. 26/9/2019 passed by the District Collector, Gandhinagar in RTS/Revision/SR/No.162/2013 and order dtd. 24/8/2021 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "SSRD") in revision application bearing No.MVV/HKP/GDHAN/12/2020. The sole grievance raised by the petitioner is non-payment of the consideration by the respondent No.11 despite the land purchased by her vide registered sale deed dtd. 20/3/2007.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he occupied the land situated at Revenue Survey No./Block No.215 admeasuring 1/52/21 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land in question"). The land is an ancestral land and in the joint ownership of the petitioner and respondent nos.6 to 10. The respondent no.11, had purchased the land in question and as a result whereof, a registered sale deed was executed between the parties on 20/3/2007. After registration of the sale deed, the entry No.3448, was mutated in the revenue record in favour of the respondent No.11 and was certified on 23/11/2007. The petitioner raised objection before the Mamlatdar and the Mamlatdar, while not considering the objection, certified the entry on 11/2/2008. The petitioner, since aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector on 21/3/2009, which also came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 7/8/2013. The revision filed before the Collector also came to be dismissed on 9/3/2013 and vide order dtd. 24/8/2021, the SSRD also dismissed the revision application. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr.Krunal Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land came to be sold in favour of the respondent No.11 vide registered sale deed dtd. 20/3/2007 and entry, came to be mutated in the revenue record. It is submitted that the respondent no.11, though got the sale deed executed in her favour, did not pay the sale consideration to the present petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has raised the objection against the entry no.3448. The Mamlatdar, without considering the objection of the petitioner, certified the entry. It is also submitted that the Mamlatdar, did not consider the factum that the sale consideration, was not paid by the respondent no.11 and therefore, the entry could not have been mutated in the revenue record. It is submitted that in the appeal before the Deputy Collector, the Deputy Collector, did not consider the case of the petitioner and rejected the appeal. Similarly, the Collector and SSRD, failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was the original owner and in physical possession of the property and therefore, the benefits which would enure, from the land, has to come to the share of the petitioner.