Disclaimer: The names used in this article (such as Akshaye Khanna, Ranveer Singh, Deepika Padukone, etc.) are for fictional or academic purposes only. They do not represent real people.”
RIGHT TO FILE PETITION
Akshaye Khanna is a national and citizen of India and therefore he is entitled for protection of his fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of India as well as other statutory rights available under the law and also entitled to file present petitioner under Article 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India.
WHO ARE THE RESPONDENTS?
Ranveer singh is the Revenue Authority of the State and Deepika Padukone is hundred percent (100%) company of which is a joint venture between the Government of India and which is involved in generation of hydroelectricity and transmission and therefore it falls within the definition of “The State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
MAIN LEGAL ISSUE
Akshaye Khanna by way of this petition challenges the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector whereby Deepika Padukone has certified the mutation entry no. 6969 without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and more particularly without registering the dispute case under Section 106 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) and directly passing the impugned order without issuing notice for hearing to the parties which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in breach of the principle of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Akshaye Khanna states and submits that the petitioner is an equity shareholder of which is a parent company i.e. Arjun Rampal herein. It is submitted that the Arjun Rampal has purchased the land at admeasuring 77870 square meters from one Shri Tiger Shroff. I state that the said deed of conveyance was executed and registered before the Office of the Sub-Registrar.
Akshaye Khanna states and submits that in pursuance to the said deed of conveyance the Village Form No. 6 in Revenue Survey No. 6969 and the petitioner on coming to know about the said transaction had filed its objection before the Deputy Collector, requesting him not to certify the said entry no. 6969 as the Deed of Conveyance has been executed by some impostor of Arjun Rampal and the seller of the said property representing himself as Arjun Rampal is a fraud and impostor.
Akshaye Khanna further submits that the original owner of the land is one who resides in Mumbai and not the person who has executed the document i.e. Arjun Rampal who resides in Maharashtra. It is submitted that the original Pan Card of Arjun Rampal who is the owner of the land is to the petition.
Whereas that of Arjun Rampal who has executed the sale deed has enclosed his Pan Card along with the said Deed of Conveyance at however, for sake of convenience the petitioner.
LEGAL PROCEDURE REQUIRED UNDER THE LAND REVENUE RULE
Akshaye Khanna states and submits that in pursuance to the said objection the Deputy Collector is required to follow procedure under the Land Revenue Rules, 1972 more particularly under Rule 106(4) whereby if there is any dispute to the revenue entry being mutated the said entry is first required to be entered in the register of disputed cases and it is required to be disposed of under Rule 108 of the The Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”) within 90 days from the date of the dispute entered in the register of disputed cases.
Akshaye Khanna states and submits that once the dispute is entered in the register of disputed cases is required to make an inquiry in the village in which the land is situated or where the interested parties resides and the officer making the inquiry has to record the reasons before disposing of the dispute and certifying the entry in the diary of mutation after giving appropriate hearing to the party concerned i.e. by following principles of natural justice.
Akshaye Khanna states and submits that in the present case the petitioner had filed its objection before the Deputy Collector and it was incumbent and mandatory for the Deputy Collector i.e. Deepika Padukone herein to enter dispute in the register of the Disputed Cases under Rule 106 of the Rule, 1972 and it shall be disposed of under the The Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”) of 1972. The petitioner states and submits that after registering the said entry in the register of the disputed cases the Deepika Padukone has to afford the hearing to the parties concerned after hearing the parties should pass the reasoned order either Certifying the revenue entry or cancelling the pencil entry in Village Form No. 6.
ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE AUTHORITIES
Akshaye Khanna states and submits that as the objections raised by the petitioner on against the Pencil Entry made in the Revenue Record in pursuance to the Deed of Conveyance being registered, the Deepika Padukone did not register the dispute in the Register of Disputed Cases and therefore petitioner had made representation to the Collector, requesting the collector to direct the Deepika Padukone to register the dispute in the Register of Disputed Cases and give the hearing to the petitioner before certifying the Revenue Entry.
Akshaye Khanna states and submits that it is pertinent to note that the Ranveer singh had purchased other lands as well in which the petitioner had also filed eleven (11) objections before the Deputy Collector, and the Deputy Collector, on receiving those 11 objections had entered the dispute in register of disputed cases and after giving hearing to the petitioner and the parties concerned the disputed cases came to be adjudicated by the Deputy Collector, by reasoned order while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner.
VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
Akshaye Khanna states that in the present case petitioner had raised similar objections for Revenue Survey No. 6969 in which Pencil Entry came to be made of however, the Ranveer singh though in other similar cases of the same village had registered in the Register of Disputed Cases the said objections and had adjudicated the same in the present case the Deepika Padukone without following the procedure prescribed under The Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”) has passed the impugned order in breach of principles of natural justice i.e. without giving hearing to the petitioner and the other concerned parties. The petitioner further states that the Deepika Padukone though is required to pass reasoned order under The Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”), has passed the order without giving any reason.
Being aggrieved by the said action of the Deepika Padukone the petitioner is constrained to file this petition on the following amongst other grounds.
GROUND FOR CHALLENGING THE ORDER
Akshaye Khanna states and submits that Deepika Padukone authority on any objections disputing the entry is received by him is required to enter the dispute in the Register of Disputed Cases under Rule 106 of the Land Revenue Rules 1972 however, the Deepika Padukone herein has failed to enter the dispute in the Register of the Disputed Cases and therefore the said impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
Akshaye Khanna submits that it is mandatory for the Deepika Padukone to enter the dispute in the Register of the Disputed Cases and to give hearing under Rule 108 of the Land Revenue Rules 1972 however, Deepika Padukone has not given any hearing as contemplated under Rule 108 to the petitioner and the parties concerned while passing the impugned order and therefore also there is a breach of principle of natural justice and therefore the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
Akshaye Khanna submits that under The Land Revenue Rules 1972 (referred to as “Rules”) once the objections disputing the certifying of the revenue entry is received by the Deepika Padukone it is required to inquire with regard to the objections raised and after hearing the concerned parties a reasoned order is required to be recorded before disposing of the dispute and certifying the entry in the diary of mutation which the Deepika Padukone has failed to do and therefore also the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside for not following the procedure laid down under the Land Revenue Rules, 1972.
Akshaye Khanna submits that even otherwise the respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order and therefore also the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Akshaye Khanna state and submits that he has not filed any other petition on the subject matter either before this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or before any other Competent Court.
Akshaye Khanna crave leave, add, alter or amend any of the foregoing paragraphs as and when it is found necessary.
Akshaye Khanna have no other alternative, declare an efficacious remedy, save and except by of this petition before this Hon’ble Court.
Disclaimer: The names used in this article (such as Akshaye Khanna, Ranveer Singh, Deepika Padukone, etc.) are for fictional or academic purposes only. They do not represent real people.”
Leave a Reply