ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Archit P. Jani for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged order passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department dated 01.03.2024, whereby the learned SSRD has confirmed decision dated 30.08.2019, passed by the Deputy Collector, Olpad, District Surat, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against non-acceptance of the petitioners' application against treating the sale of land in question as being hit by the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, has been rejected.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Jani, it would appear that land bearing Survey No. 853/1, New Block No. 2062 admeasuring 7790 sq. mtrs. and land bearing Survey No. 841/1/B, New Block No. 2042 admeasuring 5059 sq. mtrs. had been sold by the father of the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 19.12.1996 in favour of the respondent No.3 herein. It would appear that entry no. 6181 with regard to the said sale had been certified in the revenue record. It appears that the petitioners had challenged entry no. 6191 by preferring RTS Appeal No. 155 of 2008 before the Deputy Collector, Olpad, District Surat, and whereas thereafter the case has been registered as Fragmentation Case No. 01 of 2019 and after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents, the Deputy Collector had directed de-registration of the case itself. It appears that the petitioners had challenged the same before the learned SSRD by preferring Revision Application No. 08 of 2012 and vide order dated 23.03.2016, the learned SSRD had remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector for re-hearing and detailed examination of the facts. It appears that vide order dated 30.08.2019 in Case No. 2 of 2017, the Deputy Collector, Olpad, District Surat, had withdrawn the notice issued to the purchaser of the land under the provisions of the Fragmentation Act. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said decision had preferred a revision application before the learned SSRD being Revision Application No. 2 of 2019 and whereas vide order dated 01.03.2024, the learned SSRD had inter alia not interfered with the order passed by the Deputy Collector, being aggrieved by which order, the petitioners have approached this Court.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Archit Jani for the petitioners would submit that though the sale deed was of the year 1996, late father of the petitioners had expired in the year 2005 and wherefter, the petitioners had initially preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 84 of 2007 before the concerned Civil Court, whereafter, the petitioners had questioned the entry with regard to the sale deed. Learned Advocate would submit that the Deputy Collector and the learned SSRD not having considered the grievance of the present petitioners in proper perspective therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court.

5. As against the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Jani, the present petition is vehemently objected to by learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State. Learned AGP would submit that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as it is submitted by learned AGP that by now it is a well settled proposition of law that a person who sells his property, cannot be a person aggrieved to challenge the same transaction on a breach of some inactments. Learned AGP Mr. Shah would rely upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 2011 (4) GLR 3636 in support of his submissions.

6. Having heard learned Advocate Mr. Jani and having perused the documents on record as well as the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Navuji Lalji Vaghela (Supra), this Court is included to agree with the submission made by learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah that the present peti