JANARDAN D PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Practically identical orders are challenged in all these petitions. Common questions of law and fact are found arising in all of them. I have, therefore, thought it fit to dispose of all of them by this common judgment of mine.

(2.) The petitioner in each case has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector of Dabhoi sometime in August/September 1983 as affirmed in appeal by the Collector of Baroda sometime in February 1984 as affirmed in further revision by the State Government (the respondent herein) by the order passed sometime on 11th January 1988. By his impugned order, the Deputy Collector at Dabhoi cancelled the mutation entry made and certified in the record of right pertaining to the subject-matter in each petition sometime during April to September 1981.

(3.) The facts giving rise to these petitions move in a narrow compass. Each petitioner purchased the respective subject-matter of each petition by a registered sale deed executed during March and April 1981. Thereafter each petitioner moved the concerned Talati for mutation of his name in the record of right pertaining to the subject-matter of each petition. In each case the entry was made and certified during the period from April to September 1981 by the Mamlatdar of Vaghodia. It appears to have come to the notice of the Deputy Collector at Dabhoi. He appears to have found each entry not according to law. A show-cause notice thereupon came to be issued to each petitioner sometime during May, June and September 1983. A copy of the show-cause notice is at Annexure B to each petition. Thereafter, by the order passed sometime during August/September 1983, the Deputy Collector set aside the mutation entry certified by the Mamlatdar, Vaghodia in each case. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Collector is at Annexure D to each petition. Each aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Collector of Baroda under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (the Rules for convenience) framed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief). By his order passed sometime in February and March 1984, the Collector of Baroda rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure E to each petition. Each aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in further revision before the respondent under Rule 108(6A) of the Rules. By the order passed by and on behalf of the respondent on 11th January 1988, each revisional application came to be rejected. Its copy is at Annexure F to each petition. Each aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of each one's respective petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the orders at Annexures D, E and F to each petition.