Back
NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Babubhai Ramnarayan Acharya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nikhil S. Kariel, J.
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Vakil with learned Advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State.
2. The present petition is taken up for final hearing in context of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.02.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 12962 of 2017, more particularly whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had inter alia requested the learned Single Judge to decide the proceedings of the present petition expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the City Deputy Collector (West), Ahmedabad, in RTS/Appeal/Case No. 180 of 2016, whereby the Deputy Collector, has inter alia set aside 07 different entries in one single proceeding.
4. At this stage, it requires to be noted that originally, vide an order dated 06.04.2017, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had recorded the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioners and had listed the matter for hearing on 10.04.2017. It appears that after a detailed hearing on 10.04.2017,
The court held that the Deputy Collector's order setting aside multiple revenue entries was invalid due to procedural violations and lack of jurisdiction under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.
The delay in filing an appeal does not affect a fraudulent transaction, which is void ab initio and a nullity.
Revenue authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice when altering land records, providing notice and opportunity for affected parties to ensure fair proceedings.
Point of Law : Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of inferior tribunal except where the findings are perverse and not based on a....
Point of law: Since notice has been issued after 78 years, it is completely beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the notice itself would be a nullity and without any jurisdiction. When the....
The power to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 is subject to the principles of natural justice and the requirement....
Deputy Collector could not have invoked suo motu jurisdiction after one year from the date of passing of any order passed by the Mamlatdar.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
