NATHUBHAI MERAMAN DARJI Vs. SPAECIAL SECRETARY APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) on behalf of the State Government on 12th March 1993 (communicated on 23rd March 1993) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 1 set aside the order passed by the Collector of Junagadh (respondent No. 2 herein) on 16th January 1992 setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector at Veraval (respondent No. 3 herein) on 28th February 1991. By his aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 3, entry No. 387 in village Form No. 6 (popularly known as the Record of Rights) effected on 29th November 1971 and certified on 12th April 1972 with respect to one parcel of land bearing survey No. 63 admeasuring 4 acres 21 gunthas situated at village Rampara taluka Veraval (the disputed land for convenience) was set aside.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land originally belonged to one Koli Arjan Desa Mer (the deceased for convenience). Respondent No. 5 claims to be his grandson. The deceased appears to have sold the disputed land to the petitioner by a registered document executed some time on 16th September 1970. Thereupon, the necessary mutation was effected in the record of rights with respect to the disputed land on 29th November 1971by means of entry No. 387. It was duly certified on 12th April 1972. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It appears that respondent No. 5 moved respondent No. 3 for taking the entry at Annexure-A to this petition in revision and for setting it aside. By the order passed on 28th February 1991, respondent No. 3 set aside the entry at Annexure-A to this petition and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar at Veraval (respondent No. 4 herein) for deciding the matter afresh according to law. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in further revision before respondent No. 2 under Rule 108 (6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (the Rules for brief) framed under the relevant provisions contained in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief). A copy of the memo of revision styled as Memo of Appeal is at Annexure-C to this petition. By the order passed on 16th January 1992 in the aforesaid revisional proceeding, respondent No. 2 accepted the petitioner's revisional application and set aside the order at Annexure-B to this petition. Its copy is at Annexured-D to this petition. That aggrieved respondent No. 5 herein. He carried the matter in further revision before respondent No. 1. By his order passed on 12th March 1993 but communicated on 23rd March, 1993 respondent No. 1 accepted the revisional application of respondent No. 5 and set aside the order at Annexure-D to this petition. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. That aggrieved the present petitioner. He has thereupon approached this court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 set aside the entry at Annexure-A to this petition on the ground that no notice under Sec. 135-D of the Code was given to the deceased before effecting the mutation in the record of rights. Respondent No. 1 has affirmed that conclusion reached by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 has further found that the petitioner was not an agriculturist at the relevant time and the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner was hit by Sec. 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed. Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Laws Ordinance Act, 1949 (the Ordinance for brief).