The Mamlatdar's exercise of power in passing the impugned order, contrary to earlier rejections and without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, was contrary to settled legal principles.

ORDER :

1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside impugned order dated 19.6.2021 passed by the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Kalol, whereby upon application moved by private respondent, it was ordered to enter his name in the revenue record for the land in question.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-

2.1 The dispute pertains to Block No.781/1B of Village-Jaspur, Taluka-Kalol, District-Gandhinagar. It was the case of private respondent herein that the land in question was given as gift to him by Bai Kanku widow of Patel Manilal Chatur, for which entry no.445 was mutated in the revenue record. According to the private respondent, in the revenue record the land in question was not included in aforesaid entry no.445. That land bearing Revenue Survey No.756/1/B/P, 773/3, 744/3 having new Block No.781 were reflected in mutation entry no.43 in the name of Bai Kanku widow of Patel Manilal Chatur. It is contended that thereafter vide entry no.362/1 certain corrections were made. However, the land in question was not reflected in the Village Form No.7 and 12 extracts. Therefore, initially private respondent had made an application for mutation of his name for the land in question on 15.7.2015, which came to be dismissed by the Mamlatdar. Against said order of Mamlatdar, private respondent filed an application which also came to be dismissed in 2016. The order of Mamlatdar was challenged before the Deputy Collector, which came to be rejected by order dated 30.8.2017.

2.2 That on 18.10.2019, Superintendent of Land Records has given an opinion that there is no anomaly in the revenue record for the land in question and entry no.445 is correctly reflected and no proceedings for correction of the same can be made. It is contended that order of Deputy Collector came to be confirmed by the District Collector on 12.2.2020. It is also contended that the application of private respondent for making correction in Village Form No.7 and 12 extract for the land in question for entering his name also came to be rejected by Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24.2.2020.

2.3 Thereafter, petitioner no.2 purchased the land in question by way of registered Sale Deed, whereupon mutation entry no.6024 came to be recorded on 15.1.2021, which was not certified. Said entry no.6024 was objected by private respondents before Deputy Collector and Deputy Collector refused to certify the said entry, however, Deputy Collector further directed that challenge to entry no.6024 shall not be entertained. It is further alleged that similar order was passed on 8.6.2021 by Deputy Collector in which he had rejected the objections of private respondents with regard to entry no.6006, which was also not certified. The orders rejecting claim of private respondent by the Deputy Collector and District Collector and other authorities have become final and have not been set aside.

2.4 The private respondents once again made an application on 20.4.2020 to Mamlatdar to make correction in revenue record and to enter his name with regard to the land in question. The Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, vide order dated 19.6.2021 allowed application of private respondent and directed that record should be corrected and name of private respondent should be entered in the land in question. Being aggrieved by order of Mamlatdar, present petition has been preferred.

2.5 Respondent no.3 has filed affidavit-in-reply to the matter and has submitted that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the order of Mamlatdar and, therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed. He has also submitted that exercise undertaken by Mamlatdar is improper. He has also submitted that Civil Suit has been filed and Civil Court has granted ad-interim injunction in Civil Suit No.129 of 2021, therefore al