PATEL BHIKHABHAI KALUBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) XXXXXXXXX

(2.) .XXXXXXXXX

(3.) Learned Advocate, Shri Morakhia referred to the Government Resolution dated 01.12.2013 at Annexure?G and submitted that the procedure has been provided and though it is a joint property of the family, entry may have been made in the name of elder brother or elderly person but it could not suggest that other co?owners have no right in the joint property. He pointedly referred to Annexure?C, which is Form No.6, to support his contentions about the fact that it has been recorded that the rights have been waived by Dollyben. He submitted that the land was mutated in the Revenue Records jointly in favour of the petitioner, Surajben and Dollyben and, thereafter on marriage, Dollyben is said to have released or relinquished her right in favour of the petitioner and his cousin. He submitted that the statement of acknowledgment is also there as stated in the Village Form No.6 produced at Annexure?C. Therefore, learned Advocate, Shri Morakhia submitted that the observation about the right of Dollyben and the fact that she is said to have relinquished, are misconceived. He also referred to the communication by the State Government to concerned Collector and other Officers with regard to the breach of condition when such division of land takes place. He, therefore, submitted that as such, there is no transfer involved and, therefore, the order has proceeded on wrong premises. In support of the contention, learned Advocate, Shri Morakhia referred to and relied upon the judgment of the High Court in case of Chhotabhai Dahyabhai Thakore v. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 1997 (3) GLR 2016.