NIKULBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed in Paragraph­8 as under:

(2.) Heard Mr.H.M. Parikh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Hemang H. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.Bhavesh J. Patel, learned advocate for respondent No.9.

(3.) It is mainly contended by the learned Senior Advocate that the petitioners have purchased the land bearing Survey No.2060 admeasuring 0 Hector, 22 Are and 26 Sq. meters situated at Village Bakrol, Taluka and District Anand, by way of registered Sale Deed dated 05.09.2009 from respondent Nos.5 to 8 being undivided share in the said survey number. It is further submitted that pursuant to the registered Sale Deed, Entry No.31667 came to be mutated in the revenue record. However, the private respondents raised an objection and, therefore, Dispute Case No.271 of 2009 came to be registered before the respondent Mamlatdar. The respondent Mamlatdar passed an order on 08.04.2010 and cancelled Entry No.31667 mainly on the grounds that the land is of new tenure land and, therefore, the Sale Deed executed by the petitioners is against the provisions of law; the land in question is not converted from new tenure land to old tenure land and prior permission of the competent authority was not obtained and the requisite premium was also required to be paid by the petitioners. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing an Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Anand being RTS Appeal No.58 of 2012. The said Appeal was also dismissed by the Deputy Collector and, therefore, the petitioners challenged the said order by filing Revision Application before the Collector. When the Collector has dismissed the said Revision Application, the petitioners preferred Revision Application under Rule 108(6­A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) ('SSRD' for short). Vide the impugned order dated 09.09.2016, the SSRD has also rejected the said application and, therefore, the present petition is preferred.