IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the authorities to consider a petitioner's claim for regularization and the readiness of the petitioner to pay the premium.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge issuing directions to the Collector to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.03.2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

2. In the original writ petition, the petitioner sought relief in the nature of directions commanding the respondent No. 2 Collector to regularize the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner by determining the requisite premium of the land-in-question in accordance with law with the contention that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the premium as may be calculated by the Collector. While issuing the directions noted hereinabove, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in the proceedings of breach of conditions and resumption of the land-in-question.

3. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it was vehemently argued by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani appearing for the State appellants that the learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the orders passed in the proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities resulting into the resumption of the land-in-question, when those orders have not been challenged in the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner had approached the Writ Court without adverting to the remedies available to him under the Revenue Laws, thus, bypassing the alternative statutory remedy available at the relevant point of time. The contention, thus, is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as non-maintainable on this ground only.

4. Certain facts brought before us by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are relevant to be noted hereunder : -

4.1 At the outset, it may be noted that the dispute pertains to the Survey No. 1717, block no. 1155 of Village Bhayali, Vadodara, which was purchased by the original petitioner vide sale deed dated 07.03.2008. Indisputably at the time of execution of the said sale deed, entry in the revenue records of the land-in-question was of “old tenure land”. There is no absolutely dispute about the mutation entry of the land-in-question being of “old tenure” in the village Form No. 7/12 as on 07.03.2008, the date of execution of the sale deed.

4.2 The respondent in their affidavit-in-reply (in paragraph ‘8’), have stated that the land-in-question was not “old tenure” but it was “new and restricted tenure land” and in the year 2008 by mistake, the aforesaid land was shown as “old tenure” in the revenue records of village form No. 7/12, though infact it was a “new and restricted tenure land” from the beginning, i.e. from 1951. The mistake had occurred during the computerization of the revenue records and the land-in-question was shown as “old tenure land”.

4.3 It may further be noted that a mutation entry No.12016 dated 30.03.2010 was made of the sale deed dated 07.03.2008. It seems that at the time of certifying the said entry, mistake about the entry of the nature of the land-in-question was detected and by order dated 04.06.2010, the Circle Officer, Vadodara had cancelled the kachcha entry No. 12016 dated 30.03.2010 in the name of petitioner on the ground that the sale had taken place without prior approval of the revenue authorities. The RTS Appeal No. 16/11 filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara (Rural) against the order dated 04.06.2010 of the Circle Officer cancelling the mutation entry No. 12016 in favour of the petitioner, came to be rejected vide order dated 30.03.2013. The RTS Revision No. 75/13 filed before the Collector also came to be rejected vide order dated 25.06.2015.

4.4 In the meantime, the Deputy Collector, Vadodara (Rural) initiated separate proceedings for