SAVITABEN MANILAL VAISHNAV Vs. JAYKISHAN MANIRAM VAISHNAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges order dated 15/05/2009 made by Revisional Authority confirming order dated 20/09/2007 made by Collector, Ahmedabad, which in turn confirmed order dated 29/03/2007 made by Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant in RTS Appeal Case No. 222 of 2006 in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) IN relation to land bearing Block No. 75 situated at Village Jagatpur, Tal. Daskroi, Dist: Ahmedabad on 16/02/1998 vide mutation entry No. 1101 the name of the petitioner came to be deleted from Form No. 6. The said mutation entry came to be confirmed on 21/03/1998. Thereafter one more mutation entry No. 1211 dated 30/08/2000 came to be made which was certified on 24/10/2000. Both the mutation entries were challenged by the petitioner before Deputy Collector who did not entertain the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay. The order made by the Deputy Collector came to be confirmed by the Collector on 20/09/2007. The petitioner carried the matter before Revisional Authority who refused to grant stay of operation of the order of Collector and hence the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 1369 of 2009 which came to be disposed of by this Court on 17/02/2009. It was held by the Court that as the petition had been preferred against the interim order and the reasons prima-facie appear to be correct no interference was warranted but the Revisional Authority was directed to decide the Revision Application as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly after hearing the parties on 15/05/2009 the impugned order came to be made by the Revisional Authority.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire exercise of deleting the name of the petitioner by the aforesaid two entries made on 16/02/1998 and 30/08/2000 was bad in law as the petitioner had at no point of time given consent for such deletion. That fraud was committed by respondents No. 1 and 2, who are real brothers of the petitioner and Revenue Authorities had failed to proceed in accordance with law. Prescribed procedure under provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code and the Rules had not been adhered to by the respondent authorities before deleting the name of petitioner. That the petitioner had at no point of time given up her right to share the property in question. It was therefore submitted that Revenue Authorities be directed to enter the name of the petitioner in revenue record subject to outcome of the proceedings initiated before Civil Court by the petitioner as well as the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner. That the Revisional Authority had while passing the final order upheld the orders made by the subordinate authorities on the aspect of delay without recording any finding on the said aspect of the matter. That if the date of knowledge of the petitioner was considered there would be no delay and in the circumstances the impugned order was bad in law.