JAGDISHCHANDRA RAMANLAL CHOKSI Vs. JAYANTILAL M JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara in R.T.S. Appeal No.19 of 1992; order dated 04.08.1993 passed by the Collector, Vadodara in R.T.S. Revision Application No.27 of 1993 as well as order dated

(2.) 03.1994 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application S.R.D. No.23 of 1993 by which, the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner, being mutation entry No.4373 dated 20.10.1990 certified on 01.12.1990, has been set aside. 2. Having heard Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No.2 and considering the impugned orders, it appears that the petitioner has purchased the land in question by registered sale deed from the respondent No.1 herein and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records being mutation entry No.4373 dated 20.10.1990 which came to be certified on 01.12.1990. That the said entry came to be challenged by the respondent No.1 herein challenging the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. That the Deputy Collector, Vadodara set aside the mutation entry mainly on the ground that the transaction in favour of the petitioner is in breach of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act as well as the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code). The same came to be confirmed by the Collector, Vadodara (revisional authority).

(3.) UNDER the circumstances, as such, the impugned orders passed by the authorities cancelling the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the entry in favour of the petitioner is required to be restored with liberty in favour of the appropriate authority to initiate appropriate independent proceedings for breach of any other law, if any, more particularly, in the present case, either breach of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act as well as the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code).