LIMBABHAI ISHWARBHAI JODHANI Vs. SHANTABEN BALUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.D.C.Dave, learned counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, Mr.Manan A.Shah, learned counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5, Mr.Sunil C.Patel, learned counsel, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.6 and Mr.Jaswant K.Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and finally disposed of today.

(2.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 6.7.2007 passed by the Mamlatdar (respondent No.7) in R.T.S.Case Nos.21, 23, 24, 25, and 26 of 2005 whereby Entry Nos.1815, 1816, 1817, 1818 and 1820 in respect of land bearing Block Nos.133, 171, 125/2, 125/1 and 132 of Village Jahangirabad have been cancelled.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners have purchased lands bearing Blocks Nos.133, 171, 125/2, 125/1 and 132 of village Jahangirabad in T.P.Scheme Nos.44, 49, 20, 30, and 39A vide registered Sale Deeds dated 4.10.2005 and 28.10.2005. Consequent upon this, Entries Nos.1815, 1816, 1817, 1818 and 1820 came to be entered in the revenue records on 28.10.2005. The copies of the registered Sale Deeds are annexed collectively as Annexure -D to the petition and the copies of the mutation entries entered in the revenue record, pursuant to the above -mentioned Sale Deeds are annexed as Annexure -E to the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they had filed an application before the respondent No.7 (Mamlatdar) for making the revenue entries regarding the said purchase of lands by the petitioners. However, the respondents filed their objections and the dispute was entered into the Register of disputed cases under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and cases were registered as R.T.S. Case Nos.21, 23, 24, 25, and 25, of 2005. According to the averments made in the petition, these cases have been decided by the respondent No.7 by an order dated 6.7.2007 on a wrong and erroneous interpretation of the order of status -quo passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1824 of 2007, by directing that the said revenue entries be cancelled, necessitating the filing of the present petition.