LAWS(GJH)-2017-8-302

PRAVINABEN RAMJIBHAI SURTI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On August 11, 2017
Pravinaben Ramjibhai Surti Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department (herein after to be referred to as, 'SSRD'), Dated: 14.02.2006, in revision, wherein the delay of 2 years and 3 months is not condoned. Therefore, the following are the prayers sought for by the present petitioner.

(2.) The factual matrix, which have led to the present petition are that the petitioner, since, was a minor, the permission of the competent authority under the Guardians and the Wards Act was necessary for mutating Entry No. 1652 in favour of Respondent No.5 against the interest of the petitioner and a sale deed was executed in favour of one Shri. Hiteshkumar Dolatrai Nayak by Amrutbhai Vallabhbhai Surti and Bhikhiben Ramjibhai Surti qua the land situated at Survey No. 202, Block No. 289, Village: Sanki, Taluka: Palsana, District: Surat ('said land or the land in question', herein after). It is urged that the said land was in the joint name of Bhikhiben Ramjibhai Surti as well as Pravinaben Ramjibhai, i.e. the present petitioner. It is alleged that in contravention of the settled legal position, a bogus sale deed is executed in favour of Respondent No.5. The Collector, however, confirmed the Entry No. 1652 in favour of Respondent No.5. It is also alleged that some of the conditions necessary for the sale of the land, imposed by the order dated 30.06.1995 by the Dy. Collector, Chauryasi Prant, also have not been complied with. The petitioner, therefore, preferred revision application bearing RTS Revision Case No. 157 of 2005, before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (in brief, 'the Tribunal), challenging the order of the Collector, whereby, he confirmed the entry in favour of Respondent No.5. She had also sought order for maintaining the status quo qua the land in question.

(3.) Having heard both the sides, the Tribunal hold that there is a delay of 2 years and 3 months, which is not condonable.