DARJI PRABHABEN D/O DARJI SHIVABHAI GHELABHAI AND W/O DARJI HARIBHAI NAGINDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 3

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Has Preferred The Present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the SSRD, the order dated 21.08.2014 passed by the Collector and the order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the Assistant Collector, Patan, in the RTS proceedings.

(2.) After Having Heard The Learned Advocate Mr. S.L. Vaishya for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner had challenged the deletion of entry no. 2612 of her name in the revenue record by Circle Officer, by filing RTS case No. 94 of 2012 in the court of Assistant Collector, who vide the order dated 30.08.2012, dismissed the RTS case on the ground that the petitioner had filed the same 10 years after deletion of her name. He also observed that the said deletion was made after serving notice to the present petitioner and also after recording the statements of the concerned persons. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the revision before the Collector. However, the Collector vide the letter dated 22.10.2012 did not entertain the said revision. Thereafter, the petitioner having preferred the revision petition before SSRD under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, the SSRD dismissed the same. It appears that the petitioner again approached the Collector, however, the Collector vide the letter dated 21.08.2014 advised the petitioner to file the petition before the Gujarat High Court against the order passed by the SSRD and hence the present petition.

(3.) It Is Submitted By The Learned Advocate For The petitioner that the authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground of delay, however, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the revenue record without the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, the delay had occurred. The said submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted. As observed by the Assistant Collector and also by the SSRD in their respective orders, the petitioner was individually and by public notice served with the notice under Section 135(1)(D) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Act, however, the petitioner had not objected against the same. The petitioner had challenged the said deletion after 10 years and therefore the Assistant Collector had dismissed her case. The said order has also been confirmed by the SSRD vide the impugned order.