Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/906520/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9065 of 2008
=========================================================
IMRAN
ADAM VALI PATEL & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MM SAIYED for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 - 3.
MR JK SHAH,AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4,
3.2.5,3.2.6
None for Respondent(s) : 3,
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI for
Respondent(s) : 3.2.6
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned AGP Shri J.K. Shah waives service of rule on behalf of
respondents No.1 and 2. Learned advocate Shri Kashyap Joshi waives
service of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. At the joint request
of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is
taken up for final disposal today.
The
petitioners have challenged an order dated 19.10.1999 passed by the
Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of
Gujarat. By the said order revision application of the petitioners
No. 1 and 2 herein came to be rejected and order of Deputy Collector
under Section 73A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code dated 17.1.1980
came to be confirmed.
The
petitioners no. 1 and 2 had purchased the land held by respondent
No.3 herein way back in the year 1966. Entry in the revenue record
were also made in that regard. However, finding that original land
owner was tribal proceedings under Section 73A of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code were initiated and ultimately resulted into Deputy
Collector and thereafter Revenue Secretary passing the impugned
orders.
Learned
advocate Shri Saiyed for the petitioners submitted that initiation
of the proceedings were much belated. After 12 years of revenue
entry being certified, notice was issued. In the meantime,
substantial development work had taken place in the land in
question. Presently also the land is fully developed. He submitted
that petitioner No.3 has in the meantime purchased the land from
petitioners No. 1 and 2. He drew my attention to the narration in
the impugned order that survey settlement of the land in question
had taken place, however, same was inaccurate. Material is produced
on record to prima facie suggest that survey settlement has been
concluded prior to sale of land.
Respondent
No.3 did not oppose the petition.
Under
the circumstances, the impugned order as at Annexure-A passed by the
Deputy Secretary is quashed. Proceedings are remanded for verifying
whether survey settlement had in fact been completed with respect to
the land in question. The authorities shall pass fresh order in
accordance with law after hearing all interested persons including
petitioner No.3.
The
petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
Interim relief to continue till final decision in the remand
proceedings.
Direct
service is permitted.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top