MANJULABEN JAMNADAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. Mr. Manav Mehta, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.9. The rest of the respondents, though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. This court has heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and hence, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing and is accordingly disposed of finally.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9 th January, 2012 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (hereinafter referred to as "the revisional authority") in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Bharuch/22/11 (Annexure 'I' to the petition) whereby the revision application filed by the respondents No.3 to 10 has been allowed and the order dated 27th November, 2010 passed by the Collector Bharuch in HKP/Appeal No.66 of 2010 has been set aside .

(3.) MR . J.M. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that Mutation Entry No.4948 was a nullity in the eyes of law since the same was made on the basis of a forged death certificate. He further submitted that the subject lands were originally held by three persons. Kalpanaben and the respondents No.11 and 12 had moved an application for making mutation entry for introducing their names in the revenue record in respect of the subject lands without disclosing the fact that the three persons who had originally purchased the subject land had several other heirs, and immediately after such mutation entry came to be made, Kalpanaben transferred the subject lands in favour of the respondents No.3 to 10. According to the learned counsel, Kalpanaben and the respondents No.11 and 12 were not the sole owners of the whole of the subject lands and therefore, the respondents No.3 to 10 do not get any valid title over the subject lands and that their claim to the subject lands, if any, would be limited to the share of Kalpanaben and her children as the seller cannot pass a better title than what he possessed.