SCA/567420/2001 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5674 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= DASRTHLAL MOTILAL KALAL & 13 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ZUBIN F BHARDA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 14. MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR AY KOGJE for Respondent(s) : 3, MR SUNIL S JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 11/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Petitioners have challenged an order dated 12/22 March 2001 by which the Mamlatdar ordered certain SCA/567420/2001 2/3 JUDGMENT entries in revenue records of the suit lands in favour of private respondents herein. 2. It is true that the order of the Mamlatdar was appealable as per the Bombay Land Revenue Code. However, this Court had way back in the year 2001 entertained the petition and also looked into somewhat serious allegations of non-hearing of the petitioners by the Mamlatdar before passing the impugned order. Under the circumstances, I have heard the matter on merits. 3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of the allegations made by the petitioners and there being every possibility of no proper hearing was given to the petitioners, it would be appropriate to remand the proceedings before the Mamlatdar for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners as well as the private respondents. 4. For the above purpose, the impugned order is quashed. Proceedings are remanded to the Mamlatdar for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Petitioners as well as respondent Nos.3 & 4 will present themselves before the Mamlatdar either personally or through authorized representatives on 1.1.2009 and shall not insist for separate fresh notice. It will be open for the Mamlatdar thereafter to fix hearing on the date that may be convenient to him. SCA/567420/2001 3/3 JUDGMENT 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)