RAMNIKBHAI MAVJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Dashrath Chauhan, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.

(2.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 31st December, 2007, passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the said respondent has refused to make the mutation entries in the revenue records for the land purchased by the petitioners.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case, as emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as the documents annexed thereto, are that the petitioners had purchased land bearing Plot No. 17 of Rajkot City Survey No. 2910 Paiki -Part, admeasuring 366.89 sq., mtrs., from Khedut Solvex Pvt. Ltd., vide registered Sale Deed No. 8778 dated 7th November, 2007 for consideration of Rs.72,00,000/ -, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure "E" to the petition. The development plan in respect of the land purchased by the petitioners was submitted in the Office of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation and was approved by the Assistant Town Planner on 18th January, 2008. It is averred in the petition that after purchasing the said Plot, the petitioners had made an application dated 23rd November, 2007 to the City Survey Superintendent, Rajkot, respondent no. 2 herein, requesting him to make necessary entries in respect of registered Sale Deed No. 8788 of 2007 and registered Sale Deed No. 4236 of 2006. The said application has been rejected by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 31st December, 2007. It further transpires from the averments made in the petition that one Bavabhai Karshanbhai Patel had filed a Special Civil Suit No. 287 of 2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot against the Rajkot Municipal Corporation in respect of the land in question. In the said Suit, the plaintiff had filed an application, which is at Exh. 5, for the grant of interim injunction, which was rejected vide order dated 30th November, 2005. The plaintiff, i.e., Bavabhai Karshanbhai Patel had thereafter, preferred an Appeal from Order No. 407 of 2004 in the High Court, against the aforesaid order. The Appeal from Order was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28th December, 2004, the relevant extract of which is reproduced hereinbelow.