DECEASED ISHWARDAS JIVANBHAI BHATT Vs. MAGANLAL CHANABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Addl.Chief Secretary, Revenue Dept, dated 6.7.91 whereby the revision of the petitioners is dismissed.

(2.) The short facts appear to be that it is the case of the petitioners that the land of Brahmin Falia bearing City Survey Nos.6, 7 & 8 were belonging to the petitioners and the lands were in the name of the petitioners since about 30 years. However, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners had given the land to the respondents who were yajman and since the respondent No.1 was poor for the purpose of construction of house the land was given on condition to return the same as and when his condition is improved, but when the city survey inquiry was made in the inquiry report the land is recorded in the name of respondents and it is the case of the petitioners that no notice was given to them and when it came to the knowledge of the petitioners, they preferred appeal being Appeal No.1/86 before the Dy.Collector, Navsari. In the said appeal the Dy.Collector Navsari found that there is no sufficient evidence is produced by the appellants who are the petitioners herein and he further found that the inquiry officer had examined all the relevant aspects after issuing notice and therefore it can not be believed that the petitioners were not aware about the same. Further, the Dy.Collector found that the land given to the respondents is as per Vada Sanhitan Rules, 1968 and the same is allotted after recovering the price for possession and therefore the contention of the petitioners that the land was given for the purpose of construction can not be accepted and therefore ultimately he dismissed the appeal as per decision dated 30.6.86.

(3.) It appears that the petitioners herein carried the matter before the Collector, Valsad against the said decision of the Dy.Collector and the Collector also found that there is no sufficient evidence produced to show any infirmity in the order passed by the Dy.Collector and hence the revision was dismissed.