Procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice principles necessitate court intervention, even when an alternative remedy exists.

ORDER :

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.J. Patel on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh on behalf of respondent- State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Collector, Mahisagar more particularly whereby entry of a registered sale-deed in favour of the present petitioner has been set aside.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Patel and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parikh and having perused the documents on record it would prima facie appear to this Court that the petitioner had purchased part of an undivided property in which the sellers had admittedly had their share. It would also appear that while the respondent no. 5 herein had a share in the property, and whereas while there appears to be signature of the other share holders of the property in the notice under Section 135D of the Land Revenue Code, insofar as the respondent no. 5 was concerned, there is an endorsement of Circle Officer that respondent no. 5 had given telephonic consent.

4. Be that as it may, the question which arises is whether the respondent no. 5 who was one of the initiators of the proceedings, could merely approach the Collector by filing an application as against an Appeal/Revision under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules.

4.1. It would also appear that while the Collector was considering objection as regards certification of the entry by the respondent no. 5, parallely, the State Authorities i.e the Mamlatdar as well as the Deputy Collector had also intimated for taking the entry in review (revision) on the ground that the respondent no. 5 had telephonically given his consent as against the physical consent.

5. It would also appear to this Court that while the impugned order states as being order in a revision application under Section 108(6), yet it does not appear that there is a proper revision application to which the petitioner as the affected party could respond.

5.1 It also appears that the petitioner, prima facie may not have got any opportunity of hearing more particularly since the petitioner on the date of hearing i.e. on 23.12.2024, had requested for time and whereas the same was adjourned on 03.01.2025 on which date the order was passed.

6. While the learned AGP points out to this Court as regards observations of the Collector at paragraph no. 5, more particularly as regards the agriculturist status of the present petitioner, yet it does not appear that before making any observations, appropriate notice as regards the said aspect had been issued to the present petitioner.

7. Having regard to the circumstances as above, while it is undoubtedly clear that the petitioner has an alternative /efficacious remedy against the order of the Collector, yet, since it appears that the procedure as required under the law may not have been followed and since it also appears that principles of nature justice may have been violated, at this stage interference is required more particularly to this Court it would appear that the impugned order is required to be interfered with and whereas, the parties are required to be relegated back to the Collector.

8. For considering the said aspect issue Notice for final disposal returnable on 08.04.2025. By way of ad-interim relief, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the revenue record. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent – State. Direct service for rest of the respondent is permitted. Direct service to respondent no. 5 through Registered Speed Post A.D. is permitted.