JANI RASIKLAL REVASHANKAR Vs. SECRETARY (APPEAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has challenged the order dated 13.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11365 of 2009 as well as the order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar in Case No. RTS/Appeal/SR/115/2000, order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar in CB/RTS/REVISION/No. 137/2005 and order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal), State of Gujarat in MVV/HKP/GDHN/04/2008.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellant who is claiming ownership right in respect to the land in question on the basis of registered sale deed dated 10.08.1983 that earlier name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of registered sale deed dated 10.08.1983, vide mutation entry no.1348 dated 16.11.1983. However, said entry was not certified by the order of Mamlatdar, Dehgam on the ground that sale in favour of the petitioner was in breach of provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act. Thereafter, again the appellant got his name mutated in the revenue record vide entry no.2317 dated 24.04.2000, relying upon very sale deed dated 10.08.1983. The mutation entry in favour of the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid sale deed was refused by Mamlatdar, Dehgam. Said entry came to be certified by Circle Officer, Rakhial. Aforesaid entry no.2317 dated 24.04.2000 came to be challenged by private respondent before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar by way of RTS Appeal No.115 of 2000 and Prant Officer, Gandhinagar by order dated 14.11.2005 allowed the said appeal and quashed and set aside mutation entry no.2317 by holding that once mutation entry in favour of the appellant on the basis of registered sale deed dated 10.08.1983 was not certified by the appropriate authority earlier in the year 1983 on the ground that sale in favour of the appellant was hit by provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act, second entry relying upon very registered sale deed could not have been made, that too without challenging earlier order passed by the Mamlatdar, Dehgam.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge by way of the impugned judgement and order dated 13.01.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 11365 of 2009 has observed as under: