JUDGMENT :

1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.5 and Mr Harnish V. Darji, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of private respondents.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.8.2017 passed in revision application no.MAVIVI/HAKAPA/AMD/203/2015 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the “SSRD”).

3. The facts in nutshell are that the land bearing survey no.809 admeasuring 8 acres, situated at Vejalpur, District Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “land in question”) was running in the name of one Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore in the revenue record and in the partition amongst family members, land bearing survey no.809/1 admeasuring 3642 sq. meters, out of total 5866 sq. meters came to the share of the petitioner and entry no.7590 dated 23.10.1997 was posted in the revenue record, followed by certification on 25.11.1997; after recording statements and drawing panchnama and in conformity with the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).

3.1 According to the petitioner, since then, the petitioner is in possession of the said land and after almost 16 years, entry no.7590 dated 23.10.1997 came to be challenged by the respondent nos.1 to 3.1 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the “private respondents”) before the Deputy Collector which, came to be rejected on the ground of delay. The appeal preferred by the private respondents before the Collector also came to be rejected vide order dated 5.9.2017 and thereby, the order of the Deputy Collector, dated 24.7.2014, stood confirmed. Being aggrieved, the private respondents, have preferred a revision before the SSRD which, came to be allowed by order dated 16.8.2017. Hence, the present petition with the aforementioned prayers.

4. After issuance of the notice, the private respondents have filed the reply. It has been averred that the claim of the petitioner, being a family members of late Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore, is misconceived inasmuch as, the petitioner is no where related to Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore. It has also been averred that the name of Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore was posted in the revenue record with respect to land bearing survey nos.805, 809, 831 of village Vejalpur which entry was mutated, as late Shri Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore was occupying the land. Necessary entry no.314 was posted in the revenue record on 8.2.1956 and therefore, the land bearing survey no.805, 809, 831, according to the private respondents, is not a family property but a self acquired property of Shri Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore and therefore, there arises no question of partition amongst the family members. It has been further averred that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to claim that the land has come in favour of the petitioner as a result of the partition amongst the family members inasmuch as, the petitioner is not a family member of deceased Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore.

4.1 It is the case of the private respondents that Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore had executed a sale deed in the year 1971 for land admeasuring 11132 sq. meters in favour of Mangaji Bhalaji and Babaji Bhalaji by executing the registered sale deed and entry no.2291, was mutated in the revenue record followed by certification. Subsequently, the name of the legal heirs of Maganji namely Gulaji, Jasaji, Kalaji and Somaji Maganji came to be entered in the revenue record, somewhere in the year 2004. According to the private respondents, instead of Mangaji Bhalaji inadvertently it has been mentioned as Maganji Bhalaji. The name of the petitioner came to be entered in the revenue record as the legal heir of Maganji Bhalaji as occupier of the land.