BHIKHABHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL Vs. KANJIBHAI CHATURBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are all heirs of one deceased Ishwarbhai Patel (petitioner Nos. 1 to 9) and heirs of deceased Harjibhai Patel (petitioner Nos. 10 to 13) have challenged the orders made by the State Government on 14. 8. 1997/15. 9. 1997 in Revision Application No. 9 of 1995 (Annexure E) whereby the order of Collector, Ahmedabad dated 29. 11. 1994 made in Revision Application No. 32 of 1994 (Annexure D) came to be confirmed, which in turn had confirmed the order of Deputy Collector, Dholka dated 25. 4. 1994 in RTS Appeal No. 28 of 1988 (Annexure C) cancelling the Mutation Entry No. 3983 dated 17. 9. 1985 (Annexure A ).

(2.) TO understand the controversy, it is necessary to take note of the fact that one Shri Kalidasbhai had three sons named Ramabhai, Zinabhai and Harjibhai. The Branch of Ramabhai contained Chaturbhai and other respondents being heirs of deceased Chaturbhai. The Branch of Zinabhai consisted of Ishwarbhai and his heirs being petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 while branch of Harjibhai comprised of the remaining petitioners. It is the say of the petitioners that on death of Ramabhai Kalidasbhai, names of his heirs were entered in the revenue record vide entry No. 3666. Similarly, vide entry No. 3667 mutation took place on death of Harjibhai and names of his heirs came on record. On 17. 1. 1985 entry No. 3983 came to be made on death of Ishwarbhai Zinabhai and the respondents relinquished their shares in the land bearing S. No. 548 in favour of the petitioners. The said entry was certified on 21. 2. 1985.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that entry No. 3983 dated 17. 1. 1985 came to be challenged by the respondents after a period of three years by preferring an appeal before the Deputy Collector. That appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14. 2. 1989 holding that the appeal was barred by limitation. That the respondents carried the matter in revision before the Collector who vide order dated 21. 6. 1990 partly allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to Deputy Collector for deciding afresh.