Gujarat High Court
Sanjaybhai Vishnudayal Sharma vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2021
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/4694/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4694 of 2020
==========================================================
SANJAYBHAI VISHNUDAYAL SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
A B PATEL(7467) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No.
10,10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4,10.5,10.5.1,10.5.2,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR BHARAT VYAS, AGP SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99)
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 25/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed with following prayer(s):-
"7(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus by
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated
31.01.2018 at Annexure-A passed by the learned Additional
Secretary (Revenue Department Appeal), Ahmedabad in MVV/HKP/
SBR/19/2017confirming the impugned judgment and order dated
14.03.2017 at Annexure-H passed by the learned Collector,
Sabarkantha in RTS/REVISION/Case No.39 of 2015 and impugned
judgment and order dated 16.12.2014 at Annexure-G passed by the
learned Deputy Collector, Idar in RTS/Appeal/DASU No.81of 2014
(B) ......
(C) ...... "
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the original owner of the
property viz. Pathan Mohamadkhan Darajkhan had 2 wives i.e.
respondent nos.6 and 10 herein. At the outset, when the original
owner expired, at that time, the name of only one wife was
mutated in his place, and thereafter, the property was running
in the name of said wife of deceased-original owner. It is from
her that the present petitioner and other persons had purchased
the property, however, subsequently, by instituting collusive
proceedings of the 2 wives of the deceased-original owner, the
names of respondent nos.6 to 9 came to be entered in the city
C/SCA/4694/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2021
survey record.
3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that on account of collusive proceedings between
family members of 2 wives of original owner, the right of the
petitioner in the land in question has suffered. He points out
that the person identically situated as the petitioner had
approached the S.S.R.D. against the order passed in collusive
proceedings, which came to be disposed of vide order dated
07.01/02.2018. Learned advocate for the petitioner states that
as the interest of the petitioner is identically that of the applicant
in MVV/HKP/SBR/19/2017, the Court may pass similar order.
4. Learned AGP submits that the property claimed by the
petitioner under the registered document is the part of the order
which is passed by the Deputy Collector and confirmed by the
Collector and S.S.R.D., however, the petitioner is not party to the
said proceedings.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and considering the interest
of the petitioner based on registered document and the
subsequent proceedings initiated between the family members of
the original owner (since deceased), it would be appropriate to
relegate the petitioner to the S.S.R.D. which shall consider
revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of
the Collector, Sabarkantha dated 14.03.2017 in light of the order
already passed by the S.S.R.D. in MVV/HKP/SBR/19/2017
dated 31.01.2018.
With aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
Direct service permitted.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
GIRISH
