Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1282 (GUJ)

KANAIYALAL MAFATLAL PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-12-24

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.9.2018 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 and order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar in Case No.PO/Fragmentation Act/SR/2/2010. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vikarm Thakor for the petitioner, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with Mr. Harivadan Mishra, learned advocate for respondent Nos.6, 7 & 9 and Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3. As learned advocates for the parties have arrived at an agreement that the matter be heard finally, the matter was taken up for final hearing. 4. Rule. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. Harivadan Mishra waives service of rule for respondent Nos.6, 7 & 9. Though served, no one appeared for respondent Nos.8, 10 to 19. 5. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are stated as under. 5.1 It is the case of the petitioner that one Durgadas Patel was having two sons viz. Shankarbhai and Ranchhodbhai. Out of those two sons, Ranchhodbhai died unmarried, whereas Shankarbhai has three sons; (1) Becharbhai, (2) Prabhudasbhai and (3) Lalbhai. Prabhudasbhai had two sons and two daughters; (1) Jayantibhai, (2) Keshavlal, (3) Dahiben, and (4) Belaben (respondent Nos.6 to 9). Becharbhai had four daughters and one son; (1) Shardaben, (2) Mafatbhai, (3) Kokilaben, (4) Manjulaben, and (5) Surajben (respondent Nos.10 to 13 & 15). Respondent No.14 Surajben is wife of Becharbhai. Lalbhai had two sons and two daughters; (1) Ghanshyambhai, (2) Rajubhai, (3) Vinaben and (4) Gangaben, who are joined as respondent Nos. 16 to 19. All the three sons of deceased Shankarbhai also died before 21.1.2007 and hence their legal heirs are joined as party respondents. 5.2 The land bearing Block No.521 (New Block / Survey Nos.805) admeasuring 4755 square meters of land situated in the sim of village Ambapur, Taluka and District Gandhinagar was originally belonging to Shankarbhai Durgadas, who died leaving behind him three sons viz. Becharbhai, Prabhudasbhai and Lalbhai. 5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.10 to 19 executed an agreement to sale in respect of 2377.5 square meters of land, out of total undivided land admeasuring 4755 square meters in favour of the petitioner after receiving full consideration. Becharbhai, Prabhudasbhai and Lalbhai. 5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.10 to 19 executed an agreement to sale in respect of 2377.5 square meters of land, out of total undivided land admeasuring 4755 square meters in favour of the petitioner after receiving full consideration. The aforesaid agreement to sale was also signed by Prabhudasbhai Shankarbhai, who happens to be father of respondent Nos.6 to 9. Thereafter, the power of attorney holder of respondent Nos.10 to 19 executed a registered sale deed dated 21.7.2007 in respect of the above mentioned 2377.5 square meters of land in favour of the petitioner. 5.4 Pursuant to the aforesaid sale, a mutation entry No.6129 dated 25.7.2007 was also posted in the revenue record. 5.5 No civil dispute was raised in respect of the aforesaid sale deed by respondent Nos.10 to 19. However, the legal heirs of Prabhudas Shankarbhai i.e. respondent Nos.6 to 9, who are the co-owners of the land in question, preferred revision application before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar on or around 26.3.2010 and challenged the mutation entry No.6129 dated 25.7.2007 and also prayed for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid proceedings were initiated by respondent Nos.6 to 9 on the ground that by purchasing the aforesaid land, the petitioners have fragmented a portion from the land jointly held by three sons of deceased Shankarbhai i.e. Becharbhai, Prabhudasbhai and Lalbhai and their heirs and before selling the land to the petitioners, consent of respondent Nos.6 to 9 was not obtained. Notice under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was not served upon the respondent Nos.6 to 9, and even without there being any division of land, which was jointly held by legal heirs of Becharbhai, Prabhudasbhai and Lalbhai, and though the division or partition in respect of the land in question had never taken place, the sale of portion of land would amount to breach of the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, `Fragmentation Act’), and therefore, prayed for cancellation of sale transaction by holding the same as invalid and to impose penalty upon the petitioner. 5.6 Pursuant to the above application, the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar carried out inquiry under Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act and held that thought the land belong to a block, such sale transaction was required to be done only after obtaining permission from the competent authority and hence it amounts to violation of Section 31(1)(b) of the Fragmentation Act. Therefore, the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar passed order dated 17.5.2012 holding that the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner was in violation of Section 31(1)(b) and hence as per the provisions of Section 9(1) of the Fragmentation Act, the sale was held to be invalid and imposed a fine of Rs.250/- and ordered summary eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. 5.7 It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid order passed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar was without affording opportunity to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the same only when the notice with regard to entry No.6809 dated 1.6.2012 was posted and certified pursuant to the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar. According to the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 17.5.2012 before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) by filing Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/418 on or around 14.5.2018 along with the application for condonation of delay under Section 35 of the Fragmentation Act. The aforesaid revision application was decided by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) vide order dated 6.9.2018. On or about 16.10.2019, the petitioner received the copy of the order dated 6.9.2018 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and the aforesaid revision application was rejected inter alia on the ground that the revision application preferred by the petitioner was barred by res judicata as in the impugned order it was stated that earlier also, the petitioner had preferred a Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/3/2013, which was decided on 10.7.2015. 5.8 According to the petitioner, the petitioner had not filed any revision application in the year 2013 and hence he applied for certified copy of the memo of revision application and other documents of Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/3/2013. After obtaining the aforesaid documents, the petitioner also obtained the report of hand-writing expert and also filed complaint before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in respect of the aforesaid incident. After obtaining the aforesaid documents, the petitioner also obtained the report of hand-writing expert and also filed complaint before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in respect of the aforesaid incident. However, the SIT has dropped the proceedings on the ground of pendency of litigation. It is under this background that the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 6. The respondent Nos.6, 7 & 9 appeared through advocate and filed reply to the petition and objected to filing of the present petition and disputed the fact that in fact the Deputy Collector on the basis of application received by respondent Nos.6 to 9 had issued notice to the petitioners in the month of June, 2010 and further notice was issued on 11.8.2011 to all the parties, including the petitioner calling upon them as to why action should not be taken for breach of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act. It is the case of the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 9, as stated in the affidavit in reply that despite receipt of notice, the petitioner sat idle and did not do anything with respect to the aforesaid notices. 6.1 In the reply affidavit, respondent Nos.6, 7 & 9 have specifically stated that though the petitioner is claiming that he has not preferred revision application in the year 2013, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) had passed order dated 6.9.2014 rejecting the interim order and issued notice for final hearing dated 25.5.2015, which were served to the petitioner at an address, which is shown in the subsequent revision filed by petitioner himself as the address of the petitioner, and therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that, as he has not received any notice he could not participate in the proceedings and that the petitioner has never preferred revision application in the year 2013 may not be believed. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate for the petitioner, mainly challenged the impugned orders on the grounds; (i) that for sale transaction of the year 2007, the proceedings were initiated at the behest of the petitioner in the year 2010 i.e. after a period of three years; (ii) that actually when the petitioner made an application before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar by way of revision application, the revision application was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and in the main application the petitioner challenged the mutation entry No.6129 dated 25.7.2007 and prayed for quashing the same, meaning thereby the aforesaid revision application was preferred under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code and there were prayers in respect of Fragmentation Act as well as Bombay Land Revenue Code, and therefore, application of the respondent Nos.6 to 9 was vague and the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar ought not to have initiated proceedings on the basis of such vague application preferred under Bombay Land Revenue Code for initiating the proceedings under the Fragmentation Act; (iii) the earlier revision application purportedly believed to have been filed by the present petitioner in the year 2013 was actually not filed by the petitioner as the address of the petitioner shown in the application as B-51, Sansar Society, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, whereas, the actual address of the petitioner, as mentioned in Aadhar Card, electricity bill, Ration Card, driving license and in record of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is B-9, Sadbhav Bungalows, Opp. Om Tower, Camp Road, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, and therefore, as the two addresses are different, the notices in respect of the earlier proceedings were never served upon the petitioner and as the notices were never served upon the petitioner, he could never participated in the proceedings. Hence, the orders impugned are ex parte orders. 7.2 Learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor submitted that the application made by respondent Nos.6 to 9 before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar was barred by limitation as the same was made after a period of almost 3 years. He further submitted that the aforesaid application was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay, however, as per the provisions of the Act, the delay application is not required in respect of application under the provisions of the Fragmentation Act. He further submitted that the aforesaid application was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay, however, as per the provisions of the Act, the delay application is not required in respect of application under the provisions of the Fragmentation Act. He further submitted that the application preferred by respondent Nos.6 to 9 before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar was vague inasmuch as prayers were made in the said application to quash the entry No.6129 dated 25.9.2007 and to hold the sale transaction pursuant to sale deed dated 12.7.2007 is invalid and the authority was not justified in initiating the proceedings under Fragmentation Act on the basis of an application made under Bombay Land Revenue Code for RTS proceedings related to a mutation entry. 7.3 Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was shocked as the reference was made in order dated 6.9.2018 passed in subsequent Revision Application No.MVV/CON/ GDHN/4/2018 about the first revision application of the year 2013. According to learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor, the earlier Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/3/2013 was never preferred by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner never received the notices issued by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar in Case No.PO/ Fragmentation Act/SR/2/2010 and even in the revision application alleged to have been filed by the in the year 2013, the address of the petitioner was shown as B-51, Sanskar Society, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. Learned advocate Mr. Thakor submitted that as the notices in respect of the proceedings before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar were never received by petitioner, he could not participate before the Prant officer, Gandhinagar. It is further submitted that with the same incorrect address, alleged Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/3/2013 was never preferred by the petitioner and by passing the impugned order dated 6.9.2018 in Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 on the ground of res judicata, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has taken away the valuable right of audience of the petitioner before both the authorities, and therefore, prayed either to allow the petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders or to remand the matter to the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar for considering it afresh. 7.4 Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments. [A] On the issue with regard to non-observance of principles of natural justice, learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor relied on the following decisions: [1] Aurobindo Society & Anr. 7.4 Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments. [A] On the issue with regard to non-observance of principles of natural justice, learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor relied on the following decisions: [1] Aurobindo Society & Anr. vs. Sheesh Ram Kanswal [ (2018)18 SCC 493 ]. [2] Rajender Singh vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. [ (2016)4 SCC 726 ]. [3] Vishnubhai Parshottambhai Patel Since Decd. Through Heirs vs. Somabhai Harmanbhai Patel [ 2014(2) GLR 1774 ]. [4] Govindsinh Ramsinhbhai Vaghela vs. Subbarao Asst. Collector, Dholka & Ors. [ 1970 GLR 897 ] [B] On the point that proceedings under the Fragmentation Act must be initiated within a reasonable time. [1] Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai vs. State of Gujarat [ 2005(3) GLR 1852 ]. [2] Patel Ratilal Maganbhai vs. State of Gujarat [ 2003(1) GLR 562 ]. [3] Patel Somabhai Devidas vs. Dahyaji Somaji Thakor [ 2010(5) GLR 4152 ]. 7.5 By citing the aforesaid judgments, learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor submitted that, firstly that the petitioner has not been granted sufficient opportunity of hearing and hence the impugned orders are bad in law, and secondly that the very initiation of proceedings after three years by the respondent Nos.6 to 9 suffers from vice of delay and hence also the proceedings are bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7.6 In view of the aforesaid he prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. 8. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with learned advocate Mr. Harivadan Mishra submitted that the land which is purchased by the petitioner is an undivided ancestral land jointly held by the legal heirs of deceased, Becharbhai, Prabhudasbhai and Lalbhai, and no family partition or division of the land had ever taken place and the land was sold without obtaining consent from respondent Nos.6 to 9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 9 came to know about same in the year 2010 and hence the aforesaid application was preferred for initiating proceedings under the Fragmentation Act along with prayer to quash and set aside the entry No.6129 dated 25.7.2007. The aforesaid application was titled as “application for initiating proceedings under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act”, and therefore, it cannot be said that the application was vague or was filed belatedly. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. The aforesaid application was titled as “application for initiating proceedings under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act”, and therefore, it cannot be said that the application was vague or was filed belatedly. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina further submitted that the application bears the address of the petitioner as B-51, Sanskar Society, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. In the Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/3/2013, though the petitioner is denying of filing the same, but the fact remains that the address of the revisionist is shown as B-51, Sanskar Society, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad in the said application. Even in the subsequent Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 which the petitioner admits to have preferred, wherein also the very same address was shown by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner’s case is that the address of the petitioner was shown as wrong address than the one which is permanent address of the petitioner, in that case, the petitioner ought not to have preferred Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 with that very address. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina further submitted that all throughout in all the proceedings before the Deputy Collector as well as the said Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), the address of the petitioner was shown as B-51, Sanskar Society, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad and accordingly notices were served upon that address. In spite of the above, the petitioner deliberately chosen not to appear before the authorities and when despite service of notice if the petitioner chosen not to appear before the authority, it cannot be said to be violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, any order which is passed after the service of notice upon the petitioner and yet the petitioner chosen to remain absence, at this stage it is not open to the petitioner to say that the order passed by the authorities below are in violation of principles of natural justice. 8.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina pointed out from the Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 that even the revision application, which is admitted to have been preferred by the petitioner was also preferred with the very same address. 8.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina pointed out from the Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 that even the revision application, which is admitted to have been preferred by the petitioner was also preferred with the very same address. As regards the address shown in other documents produced by the advocate for the petitioner along with his rejoinder, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that a person may have two addresses, but once if a person admits that a particular application was preferred by him bearing the same address, an inference can easily be drawn that the said address is the address of the petitioner. 8.2 As regards the contention of hand writing expert about the earlier Revision Application No.MVV/ CON/GDHN/3/2013 which the petitioner denies to have ever preferred, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the opinion of the hand writing expert produced on record by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for two reasons; firstly that hand writing expert is a private hand-writing expert and secondly he has given his opinion on the basis of a photocopy of a document produced before him and not the original document. Therefore, such opinion of the hand writing expert cannot be believed as a conclusive evidence. The opinion given by a private hand writing expert cannot be believed for the reason that none of the Government authorities had referred the hand writing to the hand writing expert and the petitioner on his own had sought that opinion, which is also given on the basis of a photocopy and not on the basis of original documents. 8.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina further submitted that the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the SIT was merely a eye-wash and a cover up action to establish that earlier revision application was not preferred by the petitioner. He further submitted that no substantive police complaint under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the petitioner either by way of getting the FIR registered by way of a complaint before the competent Magisterial court. Therefore, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the SIT can be said to be a mere cover up action on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, such application cannot be said to be an application preferred by the petitioner with a bonafide intention. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Therefore, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the SIT can be said to be a mere cover up action on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, such application cannot be said to be an application preferred by the petitioner with a bonafide intention. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina further submitted that the authorities cited by the petitioner in respect of delay in initiating the proceedings that there cannot be any dispute about law holding the field in respect of delay in initiating proceedings, but the period of delay is required to be counted from the date of knowledge about sale deed executed by the petitioner. It is categorically stated that as respondent Nos.6 to 9 came to know about the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner they preferred the application before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar, and therefore, delay would not come in the way of respondent Nos.6 to 9 and will not make the application preferred by respondent Nos.6 to 9 ineffective. 8.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina submitted that in the year 2013 the revision application preferred by the petitioner was decided on merit by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and even the Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 also was considered by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) on merit as well as on the ground of res judicata and thereafter upon examining the order on merit also the order passed by Prant Officer, Gandhinagar was confirmed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina draws attention of this Court that though all throughout learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor made submissions on technicalities the learned advocate Mr. Thakor has failed to demonstrate that there is no violation of Section 31(1)(b) of the Fragmentation Act, and therefore, also the petition is required to be dismissed with costs. 9. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities are in accordance with law and no interference is called for by this Court. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that though learned advocate Mr. Thakor has tried to establish that notice pursuant to the proceedings before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar was never served upon him, and therefore, he could not participate in the proceedings before the Prant officer, Gandhinagar. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that though learned advocate Mr. Thakor has tried to establish that notice pursuant to the proceedings before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar was never served upon him, and therefore, he could not participate in the proceedings before the Prant officer, Gandhinagar. He also alleged that those proceedings were initiated after delay of almost 3 years from the date on which the sale transaction of the petitioner took place. In this regard, firstly if the delay aspect is examined, in that case, it is specifically stated by respondent Nos.6 to 9 that they were not aware about the sale transaction or the entry mutated in favour of the petitioner as a notice under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was never served upon. It is only after they came to know about the aforesaid transaction, they preferred application for cancellation of the aforesaid transaction by filing application under Fragmentation Act and also prayed for cancellation of the aforesaid entry. Learned advocate Mr. Thakor has not produced on record anything to controvert the aforesaid submission and to establish that respondent Nos.6 to 9 had any knowledge about the aforesaid sale transaction or about the fact that the entry No.6219 was mutated and the same was within the knowledge of respondent Nos.6 to 9. It is the specific case of respondent Nos.6 to 9 that while entry No.6219 was certified, no notice under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was ever served upon them. In the instant case, learned advocate Mr. Thakor has not produced on record anything to show that the aforesaid notice under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was served upon respondent Nos.6 to 9 or that they have consented for the sale deed by which the land was purchased by the petitioner. In fact, learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor has all throughout tried to argue the matter on the basis of technicalities like non-observance of principles of natural justice and that the application made by respondent Nos.6 to 9 before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar was not in accordance with law and was preferred under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, whereas the inquiry was ordered under the provisions of Fragmentation Act. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that copy of the revision application preferred before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar by respondent Nos.6 to 9 is produced on record at page 70 of the petition by the petitioner himself. The revision application is titled as “revision application for initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act”, which clearly indicates that the application was preferred as if it was an application for initiating the proceedings under the Fragmentation Act and out of the four prayers, two prayers were in respect of Fragmentation Act and only one prayer was with respect to cancellation of entry No.6219 dated 25.7.2007. The last prayer was a formal prayer i.e. the Court may grant any other appropriate relief. The tenor of the application and the averments made therein would clearly indicate that the application preferred by respondent Nos.6 to 9 was under the provisions of Fragmentation Act and not under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code and the proceedings initiated under the aforesaid provisions are previous proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner about cross utilization of powers is misconceived and cannot be sustained. Hence, the said contention is rejected. 10.1 Now, as far as the second contention in respect of delay in initiating proceedings under Section 9 of the Act is concerned, as discussed in foregoing paras the petitioner has failed to establish that respondent Nos.6 to 9 were having prior knowledge about the sale transaction or the mutation of entries or that notice under Section 135D was served upon the respondent Nos.6 to 9 and hence in absence of any such material placed on record, this Court is left with no option but to believe the version of respondent Nos.6 to 9, which was believed by the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar while initiating the proceedings under the Fragmentation Act. Therefore, even that contention has no legs to stand. 10.2 As far as the contention of learned advocate Mr. Therefore, even that contention has no legs to stand. 10.2 As far as the contention of learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor that notice in respect of the proceedings of the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar were never served upon the petitioner is concerned, there also the address mentioned in the application is B-51, Sanskar Society, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, which has been consistently mentioned by the petitioner in all the proceedings all throughout, right from the proceedings before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar, Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/3/2013 before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), which proceedings though the petitioner is denying of having filed at his instance, however subsequent proceedings of Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018, which the petitioner has specifically admitted to have initiated at his behest and the order dated 6.9.2018 passed therein is under challenge, the address shown of the petitioner is the same, as pointed out by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina. When this Court has put a specific query about the same, learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor could not satisfy this Court and simply stated that the same might have occurred by mistake while drafting Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 as the advocate who drafted the revision application of the year 2018 must have copied the address of the petitioner from earlier orders. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Thakor could not put forth any plausible explanation in support of his contention with regard to address of the petitioner, which is a vital factor in determining as to whether any of the order passed by the authority suffers from vice of principles of natural justice or not. It is not the case of the petitioner that notices issued by the authorities were not served upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that these notices might have been served at a different address where the petitioner does not reside. When the record indicates that the authorities had issued notices as well as various orders were passed and served at the very same address and when the petitioner himself has preferred Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 citing that very address to be of his own, such defence of Mr. Thakor about the address of the petitioner cannot stand and hence the same also deserves to be rejected. 10.3 As far as the contention of learned advocate Mr. Thakor about the address of the petitioner cannot stand and hence the same also deserves to be rejected. 10.3 As far as the contention of learned advocate Mr. Thakor about the fact that the earlier Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/3/2013 was not preferred by the petitioner also requires to be rejected simply for the reason that this was a private dispute in respect of the land which is sold in favour of the petitioner, only the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to 9 are the interested parties in respect of the aforesaid transaction. Except the petitioner no one can be presumed to have any interest in respect of the aforesaid land. If a person prefers an application that application is required to be decided independently by the revenue authorities and the revenue authority decides such application only on the basis of the material available on record, and therefore, no one can be sure at the time of filing application that the application would be decided in a particular manner only. Therefore, this Court has no reason to believe that any other person could have ever filed the revision application in the year 2013, as alleged by the petitioner. The precise fact can be substantiated from the fact that once the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid application, the petitioner did not file any complaint under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code by making an attempt to register FIR or by preferring any application before the Magisterial Court. All that the petitioner has done was he took help of a private hand writing expert and got a favourable opinion on the basis of the photocopy of the document without providing the original and preferred an application before the SIT without making any attempt to file a complaint. In the instant case, the petitioner files a complaint before the SIT and the SIT vide order dated 8.10.2020 rejected the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the matter being sub judice the petitioner did not take any further action challenging the aforesaid order which clearly shows that he aforesaid application was preferred before the SIT by petitioner only for the sake of filing an application without any seriousness, and therefore also, the same also cannot be considered. 10.4 As far as the judgments cited by learned advocate Mr. 10.4 As far as the judgments cited by learned advocate Mr. Thakor are concerned there cannot be any dispute about the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments. However, one cannot lose sight to the fact that in respect of those cases, there was violation of principles of natural justice, which could be established by the petitioners of those cases. In the instant case, the petitioner could neither establish the knowledge of the respondent Nos.6 to 9 nor from the address of the petitioner, the petitioner could establish that the petitioner was actually not residing on the address stated in the revision applications. On the contrary, the petitioner himself filed Revision Application No.MVV/CON/GDHN/4/2018 wherein also the very address which the petitioner is disputing was stated, and therefore, it cannot be believed that the aforesaid address which is produced by petitioner himself in his application was stated by the petitioner by mistake and actually the petitioner was not staying there. Hence, as the petitioner could not establish that there is actually violation of principles of natural justice, those judgments would not help the petitioner as from the record it seems that though the petitioner was served on the disputed address, the petitioner deliberately has decided not to participate in the proceedings, and therefore, such act of the petitioner cannot be termed as violation of principles of natural justice. Similarly, as stated in foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner could not establish that when the respondent Nos.6 to 9 gave an application to the Prant Officer for initiating the proceedings under the Fragmentation Act they had prior knowledge about the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner. The limitation would start from the date of knowledge to respondent Nos.6 to 9 and resplendent Nos.6 to 9 categorically stated in the application that they were never served with notice under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and therefore, though there cannot be any dispute about the ratio of the judgment cited by learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakor, those judgments would not help the petitioner as learned advocate Mr. Thakor could not point out that there was delay in filing application by the respondents by placing any materiel establishing that the respondent Nos.6 to 9 had prior knowledge about the aforesaid sale transaction. 10.5 Before parting, it is observed that though the matter was fought tooth and nail by learned advocate Mr. Thakor could not point out that there was delay in filing application by the respondents by placing any materiel establishing that the respondent Nos.6 to 9 had prior knowledge about the aforesaid sale transaction. 10.5 Before parting, it is observed that though the matter was fought tooth and nail by learned advocate Mr. Thakor, learned advocate for the petitioner all throughout made submissions in respect of procedural lapses and technicalities and learned advocate Mr. Thakor could not make any submissions on merit by stating that on which ground the impugned orders are bad as per law or that how there is no violation of Section 31(1)(b) of the Act, and considering this fact also the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. NIRZAR S. DESAI, J. After pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate for the petitioner, prays to stay this order for some time to enable the petitioner to approach the higher forum. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the request is rejected.