SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Guj) 334

JAYANT PATEL
MITHUSINH SAMRATSINH PARMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.R.BHATT, VIRENDRA BAHETI

( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Mengdey, learned AGP waives notice of rule for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Baheti, learned counsel waives notice of rule for respondent Nos. 4a to 4e. With consent of the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.

( 2 ) THE only question that arise in the present case for the consideration of the Court is whether the principles of res judicata will be applicable to the decision of the Revenue Authority on administrative side for non-approval of the entry ex-parte without giving any opportunity of hearing to the person concerned" to appreciate the aforesaid aspects, certain facts which can have the bearing to the present case are as under : The petitioner appears to have been purchased the land bearing Survey No. 11 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 07. 12. 1994 at village Dungarpur. It appears that based on the said Registered Sale Deed, Entry No. 139 was recorded in the Village Form No. 6 of Village Dungarpur on 23. 12. 1994. It appears that thereafter, for the very transaction, once again, mutation entry was recorded vide No. 145 on 20. 02. 1996 in Village Form No. 6. The said entry is certified by the Deputy Mamlatdar on 30. 0








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top