ABDULRAHEMAN GANIBHAI @ AYUB GANIBHAI Vs. MAMLATDAR VADHVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of the present petition, has challenged the order dated 22.3.1999 passed by the respondent No.2 Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.16/1997 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 3.6.1997 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar, canceling the Entry No.2835 made in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had purchased the land bearing Survey No.373/2 admeasuring 4 acres and 25 gunthas situated at Veravadar, Taluka Wadhavan from the respondent No.3 by way a registered sale deed dated 18.6.1987. Since the name of the petitioner was not mutated in the revenue record by the Talati, the petitioner had made an application to the Talati on 6.6.1991 for mutating his name, pursuant to which the Talati had made the Entry No.2835 on 5.6.1995. However, the respondent No.3 objected to the said mutation of the entry. The Talati, therefore, forwarded the objections to the Mamlatdar, Wadhavan, where the proceedings were registered RRT Case No.1/95- 96. The respondent No.1 Mamlatdar, after hearing the parties passed the order on 30.11.1995, rejecting the objections filed by the respondent No.3 and directing to retain the Entry No.2835 made in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 being aggrieved by the said order had preferred the Appeal before the Deputy Collector under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The Deputy Collector, vide the order dated 31.8.1996 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The respondent No.3, therefore, filed Revision Application No.27/1996-97 before the Collector under Rule 108(6) of the said Rules, who vide the order dated 3.6.1997 allowed the said Revision Application and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector as well as by the Mamlatdar.

(3.) The learned Counsel Mr.Dhirendra Mehta for the petitioner, placing heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Mithusinh Samrathsinh Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2006 2 GLH 743, submitted that the petitioner having purchased the land in question by registered sale deed, he was not required to report to the Village Accountant in view of the proviso to Section 135C of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jayantilal Jethalal Soni Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2005 4 GLR 3354 and also in case of Evergreen Apartment Coop. Housing Society Vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, 1991 1 GLR 113, as also in case of Janardan D. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 1997 1 GLR 50 to submit that the revenue authority while exercising the powers under the said Code could not have examined the provisions of the other enactment and hold that the sale made in favour of the petitioner was void.