MITHUSINH SAMRATSINH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP waives notice of rule for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Baheti, learned counsel waives notice of rule for respondent Nos. 4a to 4e. With consent of the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.

(2.) The only question that arise in the present case for the consideration of the Court is whether the principles of res judicata will be applicable to the decision of the Revenue Authority on administrative side for non-approval of the entry ex-parte without giving any opportunity of hearing to the person concerned" To appreciate the aforesaid aspects, certain facts which can have the bearing to the present case are as under : The petitioner appears to have been purchased the land bearing Survey No. 11 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 07.12.1994 at village Dungarpur. It appears that based on the said Registered Sale Deed, Entry No. 139 was recorded in the Village Form No. 6 of Village Dungarpur on 23.12.1994. It appears that thereafter, for the very transaction, once again, mutation entry was recorded vide No. 145 on 20.02.1996 in Village Form No. 6. The said entry is certified by the Deputy Mamlatdar on 30.03.1996. It appears that thereafter, the District Collector, Bhavnagar, issued notice for exercise of revisional power. The show-cause notice was issued and thereafter, the District Collector found that the competent authority had no power to enter entry once again and the petitioner ought to have preferred the appeal against the first decision of not approving the entry and the entry is barred by the principles of res judicata and therefore, the second entry No. 145 is set aside. The petitioner carried the matter before the State Government by preferring revision and in the said revision, the State Government instead of considering the aspects of applicability of principles of res judicata, examined the matter on the ground that it was not examined by the competent authority that the petitioner is agriculturist or not. It is also mentioned by the State Government that the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal against the non-approval of the Entry No. 139 and therefore, ultimately, the revision has been dismissed. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition.

(3.) Section 135C of the Code provides for reporting of the acquisition of the rights by any person of the land. It is required for the person concerned to intimate the concerned village accountant whenever rights are acquired. However, if the person has acquired the right by virtue of a registered document, he is exempted from reporting to the village accountant.