MANJITSINGH JAGJATSINGH VASU Vs. COLLECTOR AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought following reliefs in the petition:

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 162 of 1989 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) as the defendant No. 1 to 4 of the said suit sold the land bearing survey No. 16/3 of mouje Bodakdev (for convenience 'the land in question') to the defendant No. 5 by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 07/02/1985, challenging the said transaction, saying that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had no right or authority to sell the land in question. The respondent No. 2 original plaintiff also challenged the revenue entries in respect of the land in question before RTS Authorities. The said entry and other entries were upheld by the SSRD, Ahmedabad by an order dated 11/05/1994 in Revision Application Nos. SRD/AMD/HKP/13/91, 14/91 and 15/91 subject to the final outcome of the aforesaid suit. In the said suit, the parties arrived at a settlement and accordingly, withdrawal pursis requesting permission to withdraw the said suit qua the land in question and also deleting the names of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 was filed by the respondent No. 2 original plaintiff, which was granted by the learned Civil Judge by order dated 23/02/2005. Thereafter, the petitioners herein purchased the land in question from defendant No. 5 and pursuant to Sale Deed dated 23/02/2005, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records. The petitioners being owners and occupiers of the land in question, applied for development permission under Section 29 of the Town Planning Act, which was granted on 26/08/2009 and accordingly, the petitioners put in construction on the said land, expending huge amount. It is the case of the petitioners that though the suit was compromised, the learned Civil Judge concerned, in the judgment and decree dated 14/02/2011 passed in the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 162 of 1989 made certain observations as regards the land in question in gross violation of provisions of law, ignoring the implications of compromise and deletion of names of the parties. The respondent No. 2 original plaintiff then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011 before the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), impleading the defendant No. 5 of Regular Civil Suit No. 162 of 1989 as a party respondent, ignoring the order dated 23/02/2005 whereby, names of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were ordered to be deleted in the said suit. The defendant No. 5 filed application in the said appeal for deletion of his name in view of aforesaid order dated 23/02/2005, which was opposed by respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff. The said application of defendant No. 5 came to be allowed by order dated 30/04/2012. Further, the application of the respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff for appointing the Court Commissioner was also rejected. The respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff then approached the revenue authorities as well as the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation with a view to get cancelled the development permission. The respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff also filed Special Civil Application No. 8337 of 2012. It is also the case of the petitioners that some alteration in the revenue record had been done at the instance of the respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff and pursuant to judgment and decree dated 14/02/2011, entry No. 9757 was entered on 15/09/2011, which was certified on 14/12/2011. The respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff gave an application dated 03/03/2012 to Mamlatdar, Daskroi, Ahmedabad for correction of order/entry on which, ex parte order dated 20/03/2012, was passed without hearing the petitioners. Since entry No. 9757 was a wrong reflection of status of the parties and its effect had been given by the revenue authority ignoring the compromise and unconditional withdrawal, an appeal being RTS Appeal being No. 376 of 2012 (old case No. 214 of 2012) challenging the said entry was preferred by the petitioners, however, the same was dismissed by the City Deputy Collector (West) mechanically by order dated 26/04/2013. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred RTS Appeal No. 137 of 2013 before the Collector, Ahmedabad along with application for interim stay, in which, though notice was served, the respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff did not remain present. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 12/11/2013. In the meanwhile, the revenue authority passed an entry being No. 10418 on 18/09/2013 by which, the names of the family members of the respondent No. 2 herein original plaintiff were entered, which was objected by the petitioners filing objections on 17/10/2013 to the Mamlatdar, Edhara, Taluka: Ahmedabad City (West) and also to the Talati, Bodakdev. It is further the case of the petitioners that another entry being No. 9924 also came to be passed on 20/03/2012 as rectification of entry, which was without jurisdiction, in respect of which, revision application is pending before the Collector, Ahmedabad, though entry No. 9757 was already made and certified. Against the said entry, the petitioners filed RTS Appeal No. 393 of 2012 before the City Deputy Collector (West), Ahmedabad, who rejected the same by an order dated 26/04/2013. Against the said order, the petitioners filed Revision Application No. 138 of 2013 before the Collector, Ahmedabad, which also came to be rejected by the Collector by order dated 03/07/2014 observing that the outcome of the present Special Civil Application No. 143 of 2014 would govern the subject. The respondent No. 2 also filed Special Civil Application No. 17502 of 2012 before this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 01/12/2012 related to development permission. Eventually, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 12/11/2013 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad in RTS Appeal No. 137/2013, order dated 26/04/2013 passed by the City Deputy Collector (West) in RTS Appeal No. 376 of 2012 (old case No. 214 of 2014), order dated 03/07/2014 passed in LB Revision Application No. 138 of 2013 as well as order dated 26/04/2013 passed by City Deputy Collector (West) in RTS Appeal No. 393 of 2012 and order dated 20/03/2012 passed by the Deputy Mamlatdar and for setting aside entry No. 9924 dated 20/03/2012, which was certified on 26/04/2012, present petition is filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Heard Mr. Shital R. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 original plaintiff and Mr. Manan Maheta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.