BABUBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioners can be summarized in a nutshell as under:

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor appears for the petitioner submits that it is well within the knowledge of one and all that if any registered document is placed before the revenue authority, in that event, incumbent officer shall have to make necessary entry in the revenue record by way of mutating the same. It is the requirement of law and as per provisions of law, more particularly, Sec. 135(C) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, if any registered document is to be placed before the revenue authority the authority has to mutate the same in the records of right. Admittedly, herein this case on hand, petitioner herein has become owner and occupant of the said property by way of executing registered sale deed and paying the amount of sale consideration and pursuance to which an entry mutated in the revenue record. Then after, after lapse of period of two years from the date of certifying the said entry, the respondent nos. 7 to 10 have challenged the entry before the Deputy Collector by way of preferring an appeal, and in the midst of the said proceedings matter had already been amicably settled between the parties, pursuance to which settlement deed had been placed and along with settlement deed a withdrawal pursis had also been presented wherein it is stated that matter has already been amicably settled between the parties, and therefore, they do not wish to continue with the appeal proceedings and want to withdraw the said proceedings, despite the fact that an application preferred to withdraw the appeal, the Deputy Collector had not considered the same and allowed the appeal by assigning specific reasons which were not raised by the appellants in the appeal. In short, appeal was decided on the basis of altogether different issues which were never raised by the respondent nos. 7 to 10 in the appeal. The Deputy Collector found glaring discrepancies in the name of the parties and held that name of the parties mentioned in the document are not tallied with the revenue records. It is further held that name of one lady Gajuba Prahladsang was there in the revenue record as a co-sharer of the disputed property, she has not given any power to power of attorney and her consent was also not obtained by the authority at the time of mutating the entry in the revenue record, therefore, there is merit in the appeal, and therefore, the revenue entry requires to be cancelled.