Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/534020/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5340 of 2008
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 698 of 2008
=========================================================
FULABHAI
BHIKHABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ADDITIONAL
SECRETARY & 7 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HRIDAY BUCH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 7,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS
for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4,7 - 8.
MR CG SHARMA for Respondent(s) :
5 - 6.
MR RA PATEL for Respondent(s) : 8,
MR FB BRAHMBHATT for
Respondent(s) :
8,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 25/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
the learned advocates appearing for the parties for final disposal
of the petition.
The
petitioners in both the petitions have challenged same order namely
one dated 6.8.2007 passed by the Joint Secretary(Appeals), Revenue
Department, Government of Gujarat as at Annexure-D to this petition.
By the said order, revision application of the present respondents
No. 5 and 6 came to be allowed.
Issue
pertains to entries in the revenue record of Survey No.112 of
village Bhat, Taluka and District Gandhinagar. Respondents No. 5 and
6 herein were aggrieved by an order dated 25.8.2005 by which the
Collector, Gandhinagar was pleased to dispose of the appeal of the
said respondents without any order on the basis that issues have
been compromised between respondents No. 5 and 6 herein on one side
and respondent no.7 on the other side.
The
petitioner of Special Civil Application No.5340/2008 claims to have
purchased the same subject matter land from original owner Gabhaji
Shanaji Thakor, who is petitioner in Special Civil Application
No.698/2008. Grievance of the petitioner in Special Civil
Application No. 5340/2008 is that though Kachha entry was made in
his favour on the basis of a registered sale deed, the Secretary
allowed the revision application of the present respondents No. 5
and 6 without hearing the present petitioner or original land owner
Gabhaji. It is also contended that earlier respondents No. 5 and 6
had unsuccessfully appealed before the Deputy Collector against the
restoration of the name of Gabhaji in the revenue record.
Thereafter, before the Secretary without joining either the original
owner Gabhaji or subsequent purchaser i.e petitioner of Special
Civil Application No. 5340/2008, impugned order came to be passed.
Only
on the ground that order passed by the Deputy Collector dated
25.5.2006 was not brought to the notice of the Secretary and
allowing the impugned order in the revision application to survive
simultaneously with the said order dated 25.5.2006 passed by the
Deputy Collector would be incongruent, I am inclined to remand the
proceedings for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with
law. I am however, not in agreement with the contention of the
petitioner that revision application was not maintainable, since the
Collector had disposed of appeal of respondents No. 5 and 6 herein
on compromise. I find that Collector instead of passing some order
on merits had closed the proceedings without any order and had
thereby effectively rejected the appeal of respondents No. 5 and 6
without adjudication. The Secretary was therefore, well within his
powers to entertain the revision application of respondents No. 5
and 6.
However,
to enable all the affected persons to bring full material on record
before final order can be passed, impugned order dated 6.8.2007
passed by the Secretary is quashed. Proceedings are remanded for
fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law to the
Secretary. It will be open for the petitioners of both these
petitions to participate in the said revision application and final
order will be passed after hearing them as well.
In
view of the above directions, Special Civil Application No.
5340/2008 is allowed to the above extent.
In
view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 5340/2008,
Special Civil Application No. 698/2008 is not pressed.
Both
the petitions are disposed of accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top