ASHWINKUMAR KANTILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE to amend the the cause -title of the writ petition is granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner may carry out the amendment in the cause -title of the petition in respect of the respondent No.6 forthwith.

(2.) THIS petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case, as emerging from the averments made in the petition as well as the documents annexed thereto are, that the petitioner and one Pramodrai Atmaram Gajjar (now deceased) jointly purchased land bearing Survey Nos.953/1, 953/2, 953/3 and 953/4, situated in Village Oganaj, Taluka: Dascroi, District: Ahmedabad, vide two registered Sale Deeds dated 10.7.1984. Pursuant to the first sale -deed, mutation entry was entered on 24.8.1985 being Mutation Entry No.2578, which was certified on 19.11.1985 after following the due procedure. Similarly, in respect of the second sale -deed as well, Entry No.2579 was entered on 24.8.1985, and certified on 19.11.1985. The relevant copies of the said documents have been annexed as Annexure -A collectively. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is suffering from serious cardiac problems for which he has been taking medical treatment. It is averred that the son and one daughter of the petitioner have settled in U.S.A. and the other daughter is a house -wife, who is living with her family. According to the petitioner, in view of the fact that he is old and ailing, the responsibilities of taking care of the land in question were being handled by Mr.Pramodrai Atmaram Gajjar, the joint owner of the land. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner as well as said Mr.Pramodrai Atmaram Gajjar, who jointly purchased the property, are not related to each other but were merely colleagues. The said Pramodrai Atmaram Gajjar expired, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, sometime in the year 1997. It is stated in the petition that thereafter, the petitioner decided to sell the land in question sometime in 2004 and came to know that the land in question is alleged to have been relinquished by him in 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that it was only when he made efforts to sell the land in question, that he was informed about the Mutation Entry No.3818 dated 10.6.1994, certified on 13.7.1994, regarding the relinquishment of the land by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed R.T.S.Appeal No.128 of 2004 before the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, who partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner in respect of Revenue Survey No.953/4 and the entry in respect to this survey number was cancelled in respect of the Relinquishment Deed. With regard to the entries qua Revenue Survey Nos.953/1, 953/2 and 953/3, the entries made pursuant to the Relinquishment Deed were confirmed vide order dated 16.6.2005 of the Deputy Collector, annexed as Annexure -D to the petition. The record reveals that thereafter, the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Revision Application No.99 of 2005 before the Collector, Ahmedabad. The predecessor -in -title of the present respondent No.6, i.e. Pramodrai Atmaram Gajjar also filed Revision Application No.90 of 2005 against the order dated 16.6.2005. Both these revision applications were heard and decided together. Revision Application No.90 of 2005 filed by Pramodrai Atmaram Gajjar was allowed whereas Revision Application No.99 of 2005 filed by the petitioner was rejected, by a common order dated 29.10.2005, annexed as Annexure -E to the petition. The petitioner thereafter filed Revision Application No.122 of 2005 before the respondent No.1, which has been rejected by an order dated 30.10.2007 (date of communication 2.11.2007), annexed to the petition as Annexure -F. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2007, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.