LAWS(GJH)-2013-3-52

GAGANDEEPSINGH HARDAYALSINGH BANAVET Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On March 21, 2013
Gagandeepsingh Hardayalsingh Banavet Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the original petitioner ­ Gagandeepsingh Hardayalsingh Banavet through his power of attorney holder viz. Padamjeetsingh Indrajeetsingh being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02/07/2002 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6025 of 2002, whereby, the learned single judge was pleased to dismiss the petition by observing that:- "Except the aforesaid contentions, no other contentions was raised and I do not find any substance or merit in this petition and the same is summarily dismissed."

(2.) MR . JM Patel, learned advocate for the appellant-original petitioner submitted that in the petition, the petitioner had challenged the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Baroda dated 26/03/2002 on various grounds, which was produced at Annexure-'D' to the petition. He submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Collector under Section-65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as it stood at the relevant time. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that by Act No.10 of 2009, Section-65 is deleted w.e.f. 24th July, 2009. Besides that, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that though the order was passed by the Deputy Collector on 26/03/2002, the land was purchased by the present appellant-original petitioner by registered sale-deed on 23/06/2000. Not only that, the name of the present appellant- original petitioner was mutated in the revenue record on 27/12/2000. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in light of that, it was obligatory on the part of the revenue authority to issue notice to the present appellant- original petitioner. He submitted that the order was passed without issuing any such notice to the petitioner and therefore, the order was nonest in the eye of law qua the present appellant-original petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the appellant-original petitioner invited attention of the court to the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, the same is produced at Annexure-D to the petition, wherein, it is mentioned in Paragraph-1 that -