PRAKASHBHAI PATEL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:-

(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioner herein purchased land bearing Block No.513 admeasuring 18009 square metres of village Nainpur, taluka Mehmedabad, district Kheda by registered sale deed dated 8 th February, 2011 from the erstwhile owners. Pursuant thereto, Mutation Entry No.2586 came to be posted on 9 th February, 2011, which was certified on 14th July, 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.9 ­ Krutesh Ramchandra Thakkar has purchased all the aforesaid lands including Block No.513 of the petitioner originally belonging to Parmar Chhaganbhai Ranchhodbhai from Yogeshbhai Hargovanbhai Joshi, Balkrishna Haribhai and Kanubhai Somabhai Prajapati. That pursuant to the purchase of the lands including Block No.513, Mutation Entries No.1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002 were entered in the record of rights in respect of Block No.516, 511, 506, 509, 513 and 508 respectively. The respondents No.3 to 8 had filed RTS Appeal No.44/2008 before the respondent No.2 ­ Deputy Collector on 18 th March, 2008 against the respondent No.9 ­ Krutesh Thakkar, which came to be allowed by an order dated 4th July, 2008 whereby the mutation entries came to be set aside. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 4th July, 2008 came to be challenged by the respondent No.9 before the Collector, Nadiad, who vide order dated 22nd February, 2011 dismissed the proceedings. The respondent No.9 carried the matter in further revision before the Principal Secretary (Appeals) who allowed the revision by an order dated 12th July, 2012 whereby the order passed by the Collector and the Deputy Collector came to be quashed and set aside. It is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 12 th July, 2012 is in breach of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing prior to passing the said order which directly affects his rights in respect of the subject land. It was further argued that the respondent No.9 has no right, title or interest in the land bearing Block No.513 which has been purchased by the petitioner. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Amit Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.9 opposed the petition by submitting that any right, title or interest that the petitioner would have gained would be to the extent of the right, title or interest of the original owners in the subject land. It was argued that in the light of the fact that Chhaganbhai had sold the subject property to Yogeshbhai and others from whom the respondent No.9 had purchased the subject land, the original owners no longer had any right, title or interest in the subject land. Merely because as a consequence of the order of the Collector, the names of the petitioner and his predecessor in title came to be deleted does not mean that the title in the subject land vested in the original land owners. Under the circumstances, when the original owners themselves did not have any right, title or interest in the subject land, the title of the petitioner is, therefore, defective, inasmuch as, he too does not gain any right, title or interest in the subject land.