The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 in the context of a land dispute.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Amrish K. Pandya for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Hetal Patel for the respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr.B.A.Patel for the respondent No. 2.

1.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for respondents waive service of Rule.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16/12/2022 passed in Revision Application being No. MVV/BKP/Gandhinagar/01/2020 by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-A) in the interest of justice.

(b) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 16/12/2022 passed in Revision Application being No. MVV/BKP/Gandhinagar/01/2020 by respondent no. 1 in the interest of Justice.

(c) Be pleased to pass any other and such further orders that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1. It is the case of the petitioners that from the Revenue Records, it appears that the land bearing Block/Survey No. 29 (now included in Town Planning scheme No. 16), Final Plot No. 21 admeasuring 2302 sq. mtrs situated at Mouje: Pethapur, Taluka and District: Gandhinagar was originally owned by Punjabhai Dhanabhai Vaghari and on account of death of Punjabhai Dhanabhai Vaghari, the name of his legal heir i.e. Durgabhai Punjabhai was mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No. 63.

3.2. Thereafter, on death of Durgabhai Punjabhai, the name of his legal heir i.e. Khodabhai Durgabhai was mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No. 7490 dated 01.12.1990 and subsequently, the name of Manekben Durgabhai came to be mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No. 9007 on 01.07.1998.

3.3. It is the case of the petitioners that Khodabhai Durgabhai Vaghari expired on 10.08.2006 and after his death, the names of his legal heirs i.e. (i) Champaben Wd/o Khodabhai (ii) Harkhaben Khodabhai (iii) Gitaben Khodabhai (iv) Lataben Khodabhai (v) Pravinbhai Khodabhai (vi) Gopalbhai Khodabhai and (vii) Rajivbhai Khodabhai i.e. respondent No. 4.1 to 4.7 came to be mutated in the record of rights i.e. mutation Entry No. 11273 dated 05.10.2006.

3.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the legal heirs of Koya Chutha Punjabhai Dhanabhai i.e. respondent No. 2 challenged the mutation Entry Nos.63, 7490 and 11273 before the Prant officer, Gandhinagar by filing RTS/Appeal/SR/13/2016 and after hearing the parties, the Prant Officer deregistered the said Appeal vide order dated 28.01.2019 and entry of the said order also came to be mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry No. 17513 dated 18.03.2019. The said order came to be challenged by the heirs of respondent No. 2 before the respondent No. 5 i.e. Collector, Gandhinagar by filing CB/RTS/ Pethapur/Revision/D.S./64/2019 alongwith delay application and the Collector, Gandhinagar vide order dated 14.10.2019 condoned the delay and directed to hear the matter in seriatum.

3.5. After condonation of delay, the revision was numbered as CB/RTS/Pethapur/Revision/172/2019 and after hearing the parties, the Collector rejected the said Revision Application vide order dated 26.07.2021 and confirmed the order of the Prant officer dated 28.01.2019.

3.6. It is the case of the petitioners that after the dismissal of the said Appeal, the heirs of respondent No. 4 applied to grant permission for change of use of land from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short ‘the Code, 1879’) and the same was granted by the Collector, Gandhinagar i.e. respondent No. 5, vide order dated 12.06.2019 beingCB/NA/Gandhinagar/Pethapur/29/ 100586/2019 It is the case of the petitioners that even entry to that effect came to be mutated in the record of rights vide mutation Entry