The court emphasized the necessity for complete and accurate pleadings, ruling that the modification of a confirmed entry was impermissible due to prior judicial decisions.

ORDER :

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar Raval for the applicants, learned advocate Ms. Archana Acharya for the opponent No.1 – original petitioner and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the opponent - State authorities.

2. By way of this application, the applicants have sought for recall of an order dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.421 of 2025, whereby this Court had directed the Deputy Collector, Vadodara City, to decide a representation preferred by the original petitioner dated 19.02.2024.

3. To err is human and this Court has no hesitation in accepting that it had erred in passing order dated 22.01.2025, but when the Court is made to err by placing incomplete facts that erring would amount to misleading the Court and whereas to this Court, it would appear that the present is a classic case where this Court has been unfortunately made to pass an order, which this Court should not and ought not to have passed. Having said that it would require to be stated that the Courts are manned by Judges, who are ultimately human beings and having the weight of dealing with hundreds of matters per day which are listed on Board. In this melee of proceedings, when an application comes up with an innocuous request where a party is seeking direction of this Court to decide a representation preferred by the said party, the Court relying upon the pleadings, the oral submissions and relying upon assistance rendered by other side, sometimes commits the mistake of not going deep into the facts and trying to ascertain whether even such an innocuous prayer should be granted.

4. Having observed as above, on the merits of the application, it requires to be mentioned that the prayers sought for in the main writ petition was only with regard to directing the authorities to decide a representation preferred by the petitioner dated 17.02.2024, more particularly to rectify a mistake committed while making mutation entry No.2162 dated 21.11.1984. The representation as could be figured out from the very prayer, which has been mentioned hereinabove was for correcting an entry No.2162 with regard to the land bearing Survey No.3668 situated at village: Sevasi, Dist. Vadodara.

5. The prayer being so innocuous one might wonder what is the disquiet all about. To appreciate the same the first question would be, whether the Revenue Authorities were entitled to correct or modify the entry, the answer is a straight ‘No’. The second question being whether this Court could have granted a prayer to modify entry No.2162, again the answer is a straight ‘No’. The reason being that the very said entry was subject to scrutiny in revenue proceedings and whereas vide an order dated 13.04.2005, the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No.62 of 2003 had set aside the entry No.2162 and whereas a learned Coordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, as His Lordship then was) in Special Civil Application No.15105 of 2005 vide order dated 19.09.2005 had set aside the order passed by the Additional Secretary dated 13.04.2005 and had restored the entry No.2162 referred to hereinabove. The learned Coordinate Bench having confirmed the entry No.2162, the only option which was available to the petitioner as per the law, was to have either filed a Review Application or have challenged the order of the learned Coordinate bench before an Appellate Court. There was no application possible for modification of entry no. 2162 since the same would amount to committing a contempt of direction of this Court vide order dated 19.09.2005, whereby the entry No.2162 was upheld.

6. Unfortunately, the above being the position, the petitioner, who unfortunately happens to be an advocate, then came up with the ingenuine device of filing a representation seeking for rectification of entry No.2162 and the Revenue Authorities not having acceded to his request, had approached this Court by way of the main writ petition.

7. In so