The de-registration of revision applications by a revenue authority while a High Court stay and status quo order is in operation is illegal, necessitating the remand of the matter for a fresh decision on merits.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of preferring present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assailed the orders dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Collector, Kachchh, whereby, the stay applications preferred by the petitioners have been rejected by the Collector as well as the orders dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Collector, Kachchh, whereby, the revision applications preferred by the petitioners have been de-registered from the register of the office of the Collector. The petitioners have also prayed direction against the Collector, Kachchh to restore the Revision Application Nos. 186 of 2018 and 187 of 2018 to their original file and decide the said revision applications on merit.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. B. Y. Mankad for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Meet Katira for private respondents and learned AGP Mr. Siddarth Desai for the respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad for the petitioners has referred the facts mentioned in the memo of the petition and submitted that one Mega Nameri Maheshwari was holding some parcels of land bearing Survey Nos.100, 101 and 103/1 of village Chhasara under Section 7(1) of the Inam Abolition Act and after his death, his son Nagshi had sold the said parcels of land to one Ahir Mema by way of unregistered sale deed and for the said transaction, entry No.308 came to be mutated in the revenue record in the year 1963. Thereafter, after the death of Ahir Mema, his sons viz. Pachan, Kasa and Govind made family arrangement and as per said family arrangement, Ahir Kasa became the owner of Survey No.100, Ahir Pachan became the owner of Survey No.101 and Ahir Govind became the owner of land bearing Survey No.103. An entry to that effect being entry No.964 has been mutated in the revenue record and thereafter certified on 26.05.1994. Thereafter, on 29.10.2005, Myajar Kasa Ahir sold the land bearing Survey No.100 to one Vishram Bhanushali by registered sale deed and in turn, said Vishram Bhanushali sold the said land to petitioner No.1 by executing a registered sale deed on 30.11.2011 and therefore entry No.1625 came to be mutated in the revenue record.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad further submits that as per the family arrangement, after the death of father of the petitioner No.2, he became the owner of Survey No.101 and entry No.1038 came to be mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, Govind Mema Ahir sold the land bearing Survey No.103 to the petitioner No.3 by executing a registered sale deed on 13.06.2005. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad submits that thus, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the bona fide purchasers and they have purchased the land by way of executing registered sale deeds and after making full payment of consideration to the vendors. He submits that petitioner No.2 is also the owner of the land in question as per the family arrangement. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad further submits that almost after 19 years from the date of certification of entry No.964, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein filed an appeal under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules for cancellation of entry No.964 and all subsequent entries before the Deputy Collector, Mundra. The Deputy Collector, Mundra allowed the said appeal and cancelled entry No.964 and subsequent entries vide order dated 01.03.2018. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, petitioner No.2 filed Revision Application No.187 of 2018 and petitioner No.3 filed Revision Application No.186 of 2018 under Rule 108(6)