UKABHAI RANCHODBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petitioner - Ukabhai Ranchodbhai (now deceased) had filed the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.S.R.D.'), in Revision Application No. 8 of 2009 filed under Rule 108(6-A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'), whereby the S.S.R.D. had partly allowed the said Revision Application by confirming the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by the Collector, Amreli in Revision Application 311 of 2006, so far as it cancelled the entries No. 118, 154 and 181 in the revenue record of Village Khera, Taluka Rajula, and set aside the said order, so far as it directed to enter the name of the Government, in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 70/1 paiki admeasuring 3 hectare 90 Are 52 sq. mtrs.

(2.) The Coordinate Bench vide the order dated 03.05.2013, while issuing the notice to the respondents, had granted an ad-interim relief staying the said impugned order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the S.S.R.D. as well as the order dated 07.07.2008 made by the Collector, Amreli. It is pertinent to note that thereafter the petition was dismissed for default vide order dated 17.04.2014, and Ad-interim relief had stood vacated. The petition, thereafter was restored to its original file as per the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in the Misc. Civil Application (For Restoration) No. 1 of 2019 filed in the present petition. Meaning thereby, the petition remained dismissed for default for about 5 years from 17.04.2014 to 26.04.2019, and during the said period, the ad-interim relief granted by the Court, had also remained vacated. It is also further pertinent to note that during the said period, the original petitioner - Ukabhai Ranchodbhai also expired in the year 2016 and the Misc. Civil Application for restoration was filed by the legal heirs of the said deceased petitioner - Ukabhai Ranchodbhai, however no application for bringing the legal heirs of the said Ukabhai on record has been made in the main petition, nor is there any order passed by the Court setting aside the abatement which had taken place on account of the death of the original petitioner. Hence, the petition, as such, has stood abated as the sole petitioner had expired in the year 2016 and his legal heirs have not been brought on record.

(3.) It was sought to be submitted by the Learned advocate Mr. Kanabar for the petitioner that since the application for restoration of the petition was filed by the legal heirs, they are deemed to have been brought on record on the said application having been granted by the Court. The Court does not agree with the said submission as unless there is specific order passed by the Court, the abatement does not get automatically set aside nor the legal heirs could be said to have been permitted to be brought on record of the petition. In any case, even if it is believed that the said legal heirs are deemed to have been brought on record, then also the Court does not find any substance in the petition for the following reasons.