Deciding a main application on merits without providing the opposing party an opportunity to contest the merits—especially when their arguments were limited to a preliminary delay condonation application—violates the principles of natural justice.

ORAL ORDER

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 17.08.2013 passed by the Prant OfÏcer, Annexure-J in R.T.S. Dispute No.26/2012 and order dated 24.07.2015 passed by Collector, Annexure-K, in R.T.S./Revision.205/2013 as well as the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by S.S.R.D in Revision Application No.54 of 2015.

2. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the present writ application may be summarized as under;

2.1 The grandfather of the writ applicant, namely, Shri Visdas Harjivandas Patel was holding some parcels of land, who expired on 21.08.1963, leaving behind his three children, namely, Khodidas Visdas Patel, Parshottamdas Visdas Patel and Puriben, and an entry to that effect had also been mutated in the revenue record being Entry No.1892 dated 16.11.1963 in respect of the land belonging to him.

2.2 Thereafter, partition took place amongst the two brothers, namely, Khodidas Visdas Patel and Parshottamdas Visdas Patel. However, as Parshottamdas was expired, land at Survey No.392 came in the share of Joitiben W/o. Parshottamdas Partel, and an entry to that effect also came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.3307 on 24.07.1972.

2.3 Thereafter, as the daughter of Patel Visdas Harjivandas had relinquished her rights in favour of her brothers in respect of her ancestral land, an entry to that effect also came to be mutated in the revenue record being Entry No.4018.

2.4 Thereafter, an entry being Entry No.8087 dated 16.08.1996 also came to be mutated in the revenue record disclosing therein that the land at Survey No.392 is running in the name of Joitiben W/o. Parshottamdas Patel, which she inherited by the family partition, however, she, on her own will and wish, is ready to transfer the said land at Survey No.392 in favour of her nephew Amrutlal Khodidas, and accordingly, Entry No.8087 came to be mutated in favour of the writ applicant.

2.5 The aforesaid Entry No.8087 was challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 along with late Joitiben Parshottamdas by filing an appeal being R.T.S. Dispute No.26 of 2012 on 28.1.2013 before the Prant OfÏcer along with an application for condonation of delay.

2.6 The Prant OfÏcer, Kadi, vide its order dated 17.08.2013 allowed the delay condonation application, thereby quashed and set aside order of Circle OfÏcer, Aadaraj certifying Entry No.8087.

2.7 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant preferred revision being Revision Application No.R.T.S/Revision/205/2013 before the Collector, Mahesana, who vide order dated 24.07.2015, confirmed/upheld the order passed by the Prant OfÏcer dated 17.08.2013.

2.8 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant preferred revision application before the Special Secretary (Appeals) being Revision Application No.54/2015, who vide its order dated 24.08.2017, upheld the order passed by the Collector, Mehsana dated 24.07.2015.

2.9 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant is here before this Court with the present writ application.

3. Learned advocate Rajendra Patel appearing for the writ applicant submits that all the three impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities below are unjust, illegal, perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal proposition, and as such, deserve to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that the Prant OfÏcer, Kadi has erred in deciding the main application along with the delay condonation application, as the written arguments canvassed by the writ applicant was only confined to challe