SANDIPKUMAR VASANTLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Paritosh Calla, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. R.C. Jani, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally disposed of, today.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed with the following prayers : -

(3.) MR . P.K. Jani, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that part of the land admeasuring 1315 sq.mtrs. bearing City Survey No. 6642 Paiki was bequeathed to the petitioners by a registered Will, made by Smt. Kamlaben Natwarlal Raval, wherein, one of the sons of Smt. Kamlaben Natwarlal Raval, as also Smt.Hasumatiben Bharatbhai Thaker (respondent no. 7) have appended their signatures as witnesses. It is submitted that the Will was registered before the Sub -Registrar Office at Unjha and on the basis of the aforesaid Will, the names of the petitioners rightly came to be recorded in the revenue records, as owners of the land, vide mutation Entry No. 102. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the statements of the legal heirs of Smt. Kamlaben i.e. Hasumatiben Natwarlal Raval, (respondent no. 7), as also Maheshkumar Natwarlal Raval, son of the deceased were recorded and they had consented to the Will and had not filed any objections, as is evident from the copies of the statements annexed as Annexure -'I' to the petition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Will has not been challenged by any person till date and, therefore, the City Survey Superintendent, has committed a grave error in cancelling Entry No. 102 dated 5th December, 2003, made in favour of the petitioners, pursuant to the registered Will in their favour and the orders dated 21st July, 2005 of the Collector, as confirmed by order dated 22nd October, 2007 of the respondent no. 1 are also illegal and unsustainable in law.