MANIBHAI SOMABHAI BARAIYA Vs. AITABHAI SHANKERBHAI BARAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.06.1999 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application No.SRD/K/KHP/29/1998 by which the Revisional Authority has allowed the said Revision Application preferred by respondent No.1 herein and had quashed and set aside the order dated 21.01.1994 passed by the Collector, Kheda, at Nadiad in RTS Revision Application No.53/1997 and consequently confirming the order dated 31.03.1997 passed by the Prant Officer, Nadiad cancelling the mutation entry No.3769 which was in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record by mutation entry No.3769 in the year 1950-51. It appears that the said mutation entry was made on the application submitted by the petitioner submitting that there is a partition between the family members and that he has got a right/share in the land in question. That after a period of approximately 45 years, respondent No.1 herein challenged the said mutation entry before the Prant Officer and the Prant Officer, Nadiad by order dated 31.03.1997 entertained the said Appeal and quashed and set aside the mutation entry No.3769 which was in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.03.1997 passed by the Prant Officer, Nadiad in setting aside the mutation entry No.3769, which was in favour of the petitioner, petitioner preferred Revision Application before the Collector, Kheda, at Nadiad being Revision Application No.56 of 1997 and by order dated 21.01.1994 the Collector, Kheda allowed the said Revision Application and quashed and set aside the order dated 31.03.1997 passed by the Prant Officer.

(3.) LEARNED advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has chosen to remain absent. This matter was taken up for final hearing in the first session, however, as the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 was absent, it was kept in the second session and in the second session also, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has chosen to remain absent. Under the circumstances and considering the fact that the main Special Civil Application is of the year 1999, the same is taken up for hearing ex parte.