PARTNERS OF VINAY ENTERPRISES Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) HEARD , Mr. Y. M. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) IT is fact that while initiating suo motu RTS Review Case No. 5 of 1994 by the Collector, Panchmahals @ Godhra, the petitioner herein, whose name has already been mutated vide Mutation Entry No. 1625 dated 24/07/1986, as referred hereinabove, has not been joined as a party ­ opponent, for the reasons best known to the concerned official. Under the above circumstances, it is clear that while initiating the suo motu proceeding, the petitioner herein was the necessary party to be heard, more particularly when he has purchased the said property, as referred hereinabove. Ultimately, attention on the above point was also drawn of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department in the proceedings under Rule 108(6)A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules and referred to order dated 20 30/09/2003, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'A', page 13. It appears that all the contentions have been taken before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department by the petitioner herein, which has been reflected in the order also but the said aspect and the objections raised by the petitioner herein, have not been touched by the concerned authority and no finding has been given on any of the objections raised by the petitioner herein. Thus, in short, the petitioner remained unheard starts from the inception and considering the above factual position and under the various decisions of the Hon'ble the Apex Court so also of this Court, the petitioner was required to be heard.