MUMAN HABIBBHAI SULEMANBHAI PARBADIYA Vs. MUMAN ABDURAHEMAN VALIMOHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.Parthiv A. Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 to 6 and Mr. Mihir Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.7 and 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the Revision Petition is being heard and finally decided.

(2.) BY way of the present Revision Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.03.2014, passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur in Mamlatdars' Courts Act Revision Case No.5 of 2014, whereby order dated 15.03.2014, passed by the Mamlatdar, Vadgam, has been quashed and set aside and the Revision Application preferred by respondents Nos.1 to 6 has been allowed.

(3.) MR .Sunil K. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the Mamlatdar had passed the order dated 15.03.2014, after considering the Report of the Circle Inspector. Though the said order is an exparte one, however, it was only passed for a short duration, until the next date of hearing, which was scheduled for 24.03.2014. It is further submitted that on 18.03.2014, respondents Nos.1 to 5 preferred a Revision Application before the Deputy Collector. Without following the procedure laid down in Subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Act which envisages issuance of notice, the Deputy Collector not only set aside the order dated 15.03.2014, passed by the Mamlatdar, but also allowed the Revision Application without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is submitted that the Revision Application, in its entirety, has been allowed by the Deputy Collector on the very same date on which it was filed without issuance of notice. That it was incumbent upon the Deputy Collector to issue notice to the petitioners before allowing the Revision Application. As the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section 23 of the Act, and is an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.