LALBHAI R PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued for the final disposal. The matter is today heard finally.

(2.) The only question which is required to be considered by the Court is whether it would be necessary to implead all the parties to the proceedings before the lower Authority at the time when revision is to be heard or to be preferred by the person aggrieved by the order.

(3.) The short facts appear to be that the District Collector in the proceedings of RTS under Section 108(6) of the Land Revenue Rules upon the application of the State Government through Surpanch of Nagalpur Society Vistar Gram Panchayat, Taluka Mehsana passed an order dated 9.8.2004, whereby certain directions were given for taking action against the Gram Panchayat for granting construction permission, for taking action against Dy. Mamlatdar and Talati in certifying the mutations and for taking actions against the other Officers for cheating and forging bogus documents. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Collector, have preferred Revision before the State Government being Revision Application No.34/2000 and in the proceedings of the said revision District Collector, Nagalpur Gram Panchayat, Mamlatdar and Mahendrakumar Narsinhbhai Patel were impleaded as parties. However, the other parties to the proceedings namely; Ambalal Haribhai Patel, Shardaben Revabhai Patel, Jayantibhai Haribhai Patel and Maniben Naranbhai Patel, who are respondents No.4, 5, 6, and 7 herein and who were Opponents No.3, 4, 5 and 7 before the District Collector were not impleaded as party in the revisional proceedings. The petitioner herein, who is one of the parties in the revision before the State Government submitted an application on 6.9.2004 praying the Secretary of the State Government to implead the aforesaid four respondents who are respondents No.4 to 7 as parties to the proceedings and it was prayed that the notice may be issued upon them and hearing be made of revision only thereafter. It appears that the Secretary of the State Government rejected the said application and under the circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition.