RAJESH OMPRAKASH SOOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders Annexures "b" and "c" to the petition i. e. , Order Annexure "b" passed by the Respondent No. 2 collector, Valsad, on 18. 11. 1996 in Review Application No. 1 of 1996 and order Annexure "c" passed by the Respondent No. 1. The Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Government of Gujarat, Ahmedabad on 20. 03. 1999 in Revision Application No. 55 of 1999 whereby the order Annexure "b" passed by the Collector came to be confirmed.

(2.) THE gist of the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are that the deceased Ashadevi mother of the present petitioners who are legal heirs happened to purchase lands S. No. 449, 448 and 190/a admeasuring 20 acres and 28 guntas by axegistered sale-deed dated 19. 06. 1959 and upon due verification by the authority concerned mutation entry No. 1087 was made in her name on 09. 12. 1971 and after the death of said Ashadevi mutation entry was made in the name of the present petitioners by inheritance. It is the case of the petitioners that their mother deceased Ashadevi and they had spent huge amount of money for developing the said lands. That after a long lapse of 27 years from the date of purchase of the said lands, the Respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice dated 06. 01. 1996 to the vendors as also in the name of their deceased mother Ashadevi by registering a review Case No. 1 of 1996 and calling upon them to show cause why the mutation Entry no. 1087 should not be cancelled on the ground that the purchaser was not an agriculturist.

(3.) THE present petitioners who are legal heirs of deceased Ashadevi, therefore, filed written objections stating therein that the notice was issued against a dead person as their mother Ashadevi had died long back on 19. 12. 1991, that the deceased Ashadevi was an agriculturist on the date of purchase and that she was also originally holding agricultural lands at Madhya Pradesh, that the lands in question are mutuated by Entry No. 1116 on 09. 04. 1994 in their names, and therefore, the review proceedings should be dropped. Thereupon the Respondent No. 2 passed an order in Review Case No. 1 of 1996 whereby mutation Entry No. 1087 dated 09. 12. 1971 was cancelled by holding that the same is against the provisions of Rule 36 of the rules and Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act as the petitioner was non agriculturist and a direction to initiate proceedings under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act was also issued. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the Respondent No. 2, the petitioners moved Revision Application to the respondent No. 1 who by his order dated 20. 03. 1999 rejected the same.