RUPSINH PUNABHAI KOLI SINCE DECD. THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & 1 ANOTHER Vs. MAGANBHAI KANJIBHAI PANADA & 7 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In present petition the petitioners have placed under challenge order dated 18.10.1995 passed by Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department whereby the Deputy Secretary quashed order dated 28.3.1995 passed by the Collector.

(2.) So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the record that somewhere in 1961 father of present petitioners purchased suit land from the father of present respondents.

(3.) Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that as back as in 1978 the petitioners had filed Regular Suit No. 25 of 1978 wherein learned Trial Court decided the case in favour of present petitioners and passed judgment and decree whereby present respondents came to be restrained from disturbing possession of land in question. He submitted that the learned Trial Court found that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and owner of land in question therefore the decree came to be passed in favour of the petitioners. He further submitted that the said judgment and decree has never been assailed by present respondents and accordingly it has become final. He further submitted that in view of the said decree the authority could not have any contrary view and that therefore the impugned order by the Secretary which runs contrary to the learned Trial Court's judgment and decree, it is bad and deserves to be set aside. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the proceedings which came to be instituted in 1983 are hit by inordinate and unreasonable delay and that therefore on that count the order passed by the Secretary deserves to be set aside. He also submitted that the entry No. 241 has also become final because the said entry has never been challenged by the respondents. It, however, appears that in 1983 the respondents initiated proceedings against the disputed transaction. He further submitted that since the transaction was executed by oral contract one month before 4.4.1961 Sec. 73A of the BLRC Act, which came into force on 4.4.1961, would not be applicable. He submitted that the Secretary failed to consider and appreciate these aspects and that therefore impugned order is unsustainable and may be set aside.