Gujarat High Court
Vijayrajsinh Virbhadrasinh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 21 February, 2017
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/2580/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2580 of 2017
VIJAYRAJSINH VIRBHADRASINH GOHIL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
Appearance:
MR. BHAVIK P SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 21/02/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for the respondent.
2. In present petition the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-
"9(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and / or direction directing the appropriate respondent authorities to enter / mutate the name of the petitioner as owner in the revenue records of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 472/2 situated at Ward No. 7 of Mouje Vadva, Taluka and District Bhavnagar.
(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioner at Annexure-J, K and L, requesting to delete the name of the State government and enter the name of the petitioner as owner of the Revenue Survey No. 472/2 situated in Ward No. 7 of Mouje Vadva, Taluka and District Bhavnagar."
3. As can be seen from the relief prayed for by the petitioner, the principal object and purpose of this petition Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 16:02:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/2580/2017 ORDER is to get certain entry recorded in the register i.e. for mutation of name of the petitioner as owner of the revenue records of the land bearing Revenue Survay No. 472/2, situated in Ward No.7 of Mouje Vadva, Taluka and District Bhavnagar.
4. The petition seeking such direction does not deserve to be and cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, such procedure is required to be conducted by the competent authority by examining relevant and necessary material and document and after being satisfied about veracity of the documents and genuineness of the claim. A petition, in absence of order rejecting the request, would not be maintainable. The issue as to whether the petitioner is actually owner of the land in question or not cannot be considered in writ petition and therefore the petition for said purpose does not deserve to be entertained.
5. However, at this stage learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that actually the petitioner has made representation to the competent authority in 2015 which Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 16:02:36 IST 2017 C/SCA/2580/2017 ORDER is yet not decided and that is the main grievance of the petitioner.
6. In this context learned AGP submitted that if the representation is made and it is not decided then the competent authority will consider the representation and pass necessary order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
7. In view of the said statements and submissions by learned advocate for the claimant and learned AGP, present petition is disposed of with the observation that the authority may look into the representation and consider - decide the same strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid clarifications the petition is disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Suresh* Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 16:02:36 IST 2017