STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHENDRASINHJI DIGVIJAYSINHJI VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Dipen Desai, learned AGP for the petitioner; none for the respondents though served.

(2.) THE State being aggrieved by the order dated 28th February, 1989 passed by the President, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector on 28. 4. 88 and the Mamlatdar on 7. 12. 87, holding that the proceedings conducted by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector were nullity, is before this Court.

(3.) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the Mamlatdar cum ALT, vide his order dated 17. 2. 86 held that the original land holders were possessing 2 Acres and 2 Gunthas surplus land of survey no. 54. The order not being palatable to the land holders, they preferred an appeal, the order was confirmed to the extent of the surplus land. However, survey number was changed by the order of the Deputy Collector dated 23. 9. 86. Ordinarily in absence of an appeal or revision, that could have been end of the matter, but surprisingly, another Deputy Collector, contrary to the provisions of law, took up the order of the Mamlatdar dated 17. 2. 86 in suo motu revision, issued notices to the land holders and after securing their attendance, vide his order dated 30th April, 1987 set aside the order of the Mamlatdar dated 17. 2. 86 [though it was already confirmed by another Deputy Collector on 23. 9. 86] and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for a decision afresh. After the remand, the Mamlatdar again heard the parties and held that the petitioners were in possession of 48 Acres and 15 Gunthas surplus land. The order was made on 7. 12. 87, the appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Deputy Collector on 28. 4. 88, therefore, the land holders filed Revision No. TEN BA No. 423/88, which was finally allowed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 28th February, 1989 holding inter alia, that the order of remand passed by the Collector on 30. 4. 87 was patently illegal, void ab initio and could not confer any jurisdiction on the Mamlatdar to reopen the matter. The State is now aggrieved by the said order.