Gujarat High Court
Bhikhabhai Tejabhai Gajera & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & on 11 September, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/13849/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13849 of 2017
==========================================================
BHIKHABHAI TEJABHAI GAJERA & 3....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 10....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASIT B JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1-4
MS. THAKORE, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 11/09/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the S.S.R.D at Ahmedabad, by which, the S.S.R.D rejected the revision application filed by the applicants herein, thereby affirming the order of the Collector, Junagadh dated 02.07.2014. The S.S.R.D, while rejecting the revision application, has held in the impugned order, as under;
"Upon perusal of the submissions of the parties, case record, spot inspection and related paper, it appears that the mutation entry No.20 is entered in the village record on 24.08.1953 in respect of the land at Mouje Prabhatpur, Taluka: Junagadh, according to which, Jasmat Premji had expired and since he had no heir or widow, his name was deleted and the disputed Khata was continued in the name of only Jasmat Premji. The disputed entry was entered on 25.8.953 and thereafter applicants Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 16 13:35:35 IST 2017 C/SCA/13849/2017 ORDER moved application for succession of jasmat Premji before the office of the Mamlatdar, whereby Mutation Entry No.1054 was entered on 12.2.2008, against which, the opponents here raised objections and the Mamlatdar, vide the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 had refused to certify the said entry. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants had preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Junagadh whereby while dismissing the said appeal, it is observed that the period of almost 56 years has passed. At the relevant time, after the mutation entry No.20 in village record, various transactions have been recorded in the village record, but there is no evidence on record to show that any appeal or revision seems to have been filed challenging the entry. The finding that while rejecting the appeal upholding the decision of the Mamlatdar regarding the fact that successive transaction has taken place after the disputed mutation entry, is just and proper. Therefore, the relief prayed for against the mutation entry recorded in the year 1953 cannot be upset after lapse of huge period of 50 years. There is no reason to not to accept the submissions made by the opponents and the documents relied thereupon. The disputed entry in the village record being made after following the procedure of law and there seems to be no reasons in modifying the same, the revision application of the applicant is not required to be accepted. There seems to be no valid reason to interfere with the order dated 19.5.2009 of the Deputy Collector, Junagadh of rejecting the appeal and upholding the order dated 12.2.2008 passed by the Mamlatdar of rejecting the mutation entry No.1054 in village form of Mouje Prabhatpur. The finding of the Collector to approach the competent forum in respect of any other reliefs as the Mutation Entry No.20 has been entered in the year 1953 in the disputed land and thereafter other entries have also been made, seems to be valid. At the relevant time, no objection or dispute is raised. The judgments of the various court, relied upon by the applicant are honoured but taking into consideration the details and facts of the present case, they cannot be made applicable straightway. No specific and reasonable explanation is given for delay. Law comes to rescue of vigilant person. For delay the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court (1) AIR 1981 SC 733- 1981 Cr.L.J, 293, (2) 1982 GLH 6824, (3) 2009 (3) Crimes (HC) 523, (4) 1995 (1) GLH 549 (5) 2003(2)GCD ((UJ) 68, Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 16 13:35:35 IST 2017 C/SCA/13849/2017 ORDER 1999 (4) GCD 2822 AIR 1999 GUJ 147 and (6) 1972 SC 749 and others are required to be noted. Moreover, the decisions regarding rights, share, heirship and title falls within jurisdiction of the civil court, Therefore, the present dispute is civil dispute in nature. The arguments of the applicants cannot be accepted as no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the Collector.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the record record received from the lower court and upon considering the written arguments of the parties, submissions and the evidence so lead, the following order is passed;
ORDER The revision application of the applicant is hereby rejected. The order of the Collector, Junagadh being LAND/4/RRT Revision/107/2009-10, dated 2.7.2014 is hereby confirmed."
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the S.S.R.D in passing the impugned order. No interference is warranted in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After a lapse of almost 53 years, the entries in the record of rights, are sought to be mutated on the strength of succession. If the applicants claim to be having any right, title or interest in the land in question, they will have to file a civil suit and get a declaration from the competent civil court in that regard.
3. With the above, this application is disposed of.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 16 13:35:35 IST 2017 C/SCA/13849/2017 ORDER Vahid Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 16 13:35:35 IST 2017