Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/477920/2008 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4779 of 2008
=========================================================
MANIBEN
WD/O SOMABHAI ZINABHAI & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJ PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.
MR SATYAM CHHAYA, AGP for
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 25/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates appearing for the parties for final disposal of the
petition.
2. Petitioners
have challenged an order dated 25.1.08 passed by the Principal
Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. By
the said order, the revision application of the present petitioners
against the order passed by the Collector came to be rejected. Issue
pertains to entries in the revenue record of the land bearing block
No.167 of village Palod, Tal: Mangrol which the petitioners had
purchased.
3. It
is not in dispute that with respect to the land in question,
Mamlatdar and ALT had initiated proceedings under section 84C of the
Tenancy Act and the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT thereon on
7.7.97 was confirmed by the Deputy Collector by the order dated
6.7.99. Against these orders, the petitioners had preferred revision
application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal disposed of the revision application by decision dated 6th
October, 2004 reversing the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy
Collector.
4. It
appears that the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was
not placed on record before the Secretary (Appeals). In the impugned
order, therefore, he observed that the petitioners have not produced
any details about the final outcome of the revision application which
was filed by them before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal challenging the
orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector. He,
therefore, provided that when the transfers have been declared as
illegal, it would not be appropriate to restore the entires in favour
of the petitioners, however, ultimately as per the decision of the
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, corresponding entries will be made in the
revenue records.
5. It
is true that it was the duty of the petitioners to bring on record
the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 6th
October,2004 before the Secretary (Appeals). This does not appear to
have been done. However, on account of this lapse, the petitioners
cannot be made to suffer permanently. When the Secretary himself had
provided in the impugned order that ultimate entries will be made in
the revenue records as per the outcome of the revision application
before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and when I find that the Tribunal
has already allowed the revision application of the petitioners and
reversed the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector
with respect to 84C proceedings, it is appropriate that the Mamlatdar
should carry out the correction in the records pursuant to the
decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
6. Accordingly,
it is directed that the Mamlatdar shall give effect to the decision
of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 6th October, 2004 by
making appropriate entries in the revenue record of the land in
question. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.
(Akil Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top