DEVJIBHAI B PARMAR Vs. CHIMANBHAI MANILAL PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though served, the respondents nos.1/1 to 1/5, the legal representatives of the respondent no.1 have not entered appearance.

(2.) This is a petition preferred against the order dated 21st/29th February, 1992 made by the State Government in Revision Application preferred by the petitioners.

(3.) It appears that the petitioners and the respondent no.1 were the brothers. The respondent no.1 had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.233/1988 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara for partition and for recovery of possession of his share. The said suit was compromised. Pursuant to the said compromise, a consent decree came to be passed on 22nd September, 1988. It appears that the said consent decree was not acted upon. The respondent no.1, therefore, took out execution application No.11/1989. Pending the said execution application, on application made by the present petitioners, the Mamlatdar, Vadodara, by his order dated 26th March, 1990 made pursuant to the said consent decree, directed the mutation entry to be made in the revenue record. Feeling aggrieved by the above referred order dated 26th March, 1990, the respondent no.1 preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara. The Deputy Collector, Vadodara, by his order dated 25th January, 1991, allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of the Mamlatdar. According to the Deputy Collector, no mutation entry ought to have been made by the Mamlatdar pending the execution application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal before the District Collector, Vadodara. The District Collector, Vadodara, by his order dated 1st December, 1991, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector. The said order has been confirmed by the State Government by impugned order made on the revision application preferred by the petitioners.