2015 (1) TMI 1462 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of natural justice - It is contended that as per the sale deed in question the land in question is Block No.258 and not Block No.135 and the entry came to be made without giving any opportunity of being to the petitioner - HELD THAT - The proceedings are remanded for its reconsideration to respondent No.3 Mamlatdar who shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the private respondent Nos.4 to 6 and after considering the submissions if any respondent No.3 Mamlatdar shall pass appropriate orders. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing and setting aside an impugned entry in the Village form no.6 card.
2. Maintaining status quo with regard to revenue entries.
3. Correction in revenue records.
4. Opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
5. Mutation of entry in form no.6.
6. Mistake in mentioning block numbers.
7. Pending civil suit between parties.
8. Remanding proceedings for reconsideration.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash and set aside entry no.7071 dated 4.12.2012 in the Village form no.6 card, alleging it to be non est, illegal, and arbitrary, without following principles of natural justice. The petitioner requested a correction in revenue records for Survey No.165 (Block No.135) in Village Kudasan, Gandhinagar. The Court ordered the impugned entry to be quashed and remanded the proceedings for reconsideration by the Mamlatdar, providing an opportunity of being heard to all concerned parties.

2. Pending the final disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner requested to maintain status quo with regard to revenue entry no.2135 and stay the effect of entry no.7071. The Court directed the revenue authorities to maintain status quo and stay the operation of entry no.7071 until further clarification was provided by the Mamlatdar regarding the mutation of block numbers.

3. The petitioner argued that the entry was made without giving any opportunity of being heard, emphasizing that the land in question was Block No.258, not Block No.135 as mentioned in the impugned entry. The respondent authorities contended that the mistake in mentioning the block numbers was due to an error by the concerned circle officer, who was subsequently suspended.

4. The Court highlighted the discrepancy in block numbers and the need for correction. It emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity of being heard to all parties involved, including the private respondents, before passing any orders. The proceedings were remanded for reconsideration by the Mamlatdar, allowing all parties to present their respective cases.

5. Notwithstanding the pending civil suit between the parties, the Court focused on the specific issue of the incorrect mutation of block numbers in the entry. The private respondents did not contest the fact that the entry related to Block No.258, not Block No.135 as erroneously recorded.

6. Ultimately, the Court quashed the impugned entry and remanded the proceedings for reconsideration by the Mamlatdar. It directed the Mamlatdar to provide an opportunity of being heard to all parties involved and to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably by a specified date, without prejudicing the rights of any party. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with the rule made absolute to the extent mentioned in the judgment.