ORAL JUDGMENT

1) By way of filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

‘’(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the respondent – SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/SPC/EML/93 of 2014, as well as the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the respondent – Collector in RTS/Entry Revision Case No. 74 of 2013;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by respondent No.1 in Revision Application No. MVV/SPC/EML/93 of 2014, as well as the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the respondent – Collector in RTS/Entry Revision Case No. 74 of 2013;

(C) Grant any other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.’’

2) The case of the petitioner can be conceptualized in a nutshell as under:

2.1) The petitioner herein is a bona fide purchaser, having purchased the subject property upon payment of valid sale consideration and pursuant to a duly executed registered sale deed in his favour. On the basis of the said transaction, a corresponding entry came to be mutated in the revenue record. Subsequently, the said entry was taken into suo motu revision by the Collector by issuing a notice under Rule 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and thereafter, the Collector ordered cancellation of the mutation entry. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). The principal ground raised in the appeal was that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate and proper opportunity of hearing before the impugned order came to be passed. Despite the said contention being specifically raised and argued, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner.

Hence, the present petition is filed.

3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Tattavam Patel appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Manasvi Thapar for the petitoiner and learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Desai for Respondent - State.

4) Learned advocate Mr. Tattavam Patel, appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Manasvi Thapar for the applicant, submits that the orders passed by the authorities concerned are unjust, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on record, and therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition. It is submitted that on 18.10.2011, the petitioner purchased land bearing Survey No. 74 Paiki 2, admeasuring Hectare-0-80-94, situated at village Vadhera, Taluka Jafrabad, District Amreli, from the original owner, namely, Vaghela Jadiben Khodabhai, by executing a registered sale deed upon payment of the entire sale consideration. Pursuant thereto, Entry No. 862 was mutated in the revenue record on 18.10.2011, which was subsequently certified by the revenue authority on 12.12.2011. Since then, the petitioner has been in absolute ownership and possession of the said property. Thereafter, after a lapse of approximately two years, the Collector, Amreli, initiated suo motu proceedings under Rule 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules by issuing notice to the applicant and ultimately passed an order cancelling the said revenue entry.

4.1) Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that by a bare perusal of the operative part of the order passed by the Collector reveals that the proceedings were carried out without serving notice upon the petitioner. Such an approach clearly reflects a callous attitude on the part of the authority and demonstrates that the proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no adequate opportunity of