Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Nikhil S. Kariel
Jivandas Madhavdas Agravat (Since Decd) Through Lhs Hirabhai Jivandas Agravat – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to ssrd order (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners' contention (Para 5) |
| 3. respondent's objection (Para 6) |
| 4. observations on locus standi (Para 7) |
| 5. issue under consideration (Para 8) |
| 6. court's final ruling (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shriram Bhargav for learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondent No.1 State and learned advocate Mr. Sunil Joshi for the private respondent No.7. It is clarified at this stage that while the original respondent No.7 is represented through his legal heirs, for the sake of brevity, the party will be referred to as respondent No.7.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioners challenge an order passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. learned SSRD dated 12.08.2022 passed in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/MRB/38/2021, whereby the learned SSRD has confirmed the order passed by the Collector, which had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Bhargav for the petitioner would contend that the Deputy Collector had not committed any error whatsoever since the Deputy Collector had inter alia come to a conclusion that the issue with
The petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the transcription of a sale deed in revenue records, as they were not parties to the original proceedings.
Point of law: Authority exercising power under the code has no power to conclude as to whether the breach of the other enactment by the impugned transfer or registered sale deed is made or not.
Point of Law : under section 73 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code it is incumbent duty on the part of the revenue authority on presentation of registered document, prima facie, to post an entry in the ....
Revenue authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice when altering land records, providing notice and opportunity for affected parties to ensure fair proceedings.
Deputy Collector could not have invoked suo motu jurisdiction after one year from the date of passing of any order passed by the Mamlatdar.
Once a person is selling away the land in question, he cannot maintain litigation as he has lost interest, title and that being the position
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.
it was impermissible to Collector to have taken the entries nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision after a period of almost close to five years. Therefore, the exercise of power by the Collector in t....
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
