Gujarat High Court
Deceased Nathaji Chaganji Thakor & 2 vs Collector on 25 September, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/17516/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17516 of 2017
==========================================================
DECEASED NATHAJI CHAGANJI THAKOR & 2....Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR, AHMEDABAD & 6....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.NISARG P RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 1.4.6 , 2 - 2.4
MS NISHA THAKORE AGP - ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 25/09/2017
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 29th July 2017 passed by the Special Secretary of the Revenue Department (Appeals) 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, Ahmedabad dated 26th August 2013.
2 The S.S.R.D., while rejecting the revision application filed by the applicants herein, observed as under:
"Considering the submissions of the parties, records of the case, site inspection and the material papers, it seems that the mutation entry no 920 was registered on 25/06/1979 entering the names of ancestors of the opponent as the direct occupant of the land in dispute. This entry was sanctioned by the circle officer on 11/10/1979. The heirship mutation entry no 1098 and entry no 1425 were entered on 03/02/1993 and Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Oct 07 06:24:21 IST 2017 C/SCA/17516/2017 ORDER 27/11/06 respectively. Both of these mutation entires were also certified at respective time. As appeal against all these three mutations entries was filed, the Prant officer has not accepted the same on the issue of limitation by the impugned order of 05/02/13. The applicant has filed a revision application against the same before the Collector. The original mutation entry was entered in the year 1979 in the present case. No dispute was raised by the applicants' father Nathaji Chhaganji during his lifetime against the aforesaid mutation entries. After his death, the applicants have preferred the aforesaid revision application as the heirs after a long time span of 33 years of the impugned mutation entry being sanctioned. As per the section 108(5) of the Land Revenue Act, the aggrieved party against the decision taken u/s 108(1) to (4) with regard to the mutation entry has to file the application within 60 days before the Prant officer. However, if the appellate authority feels that the appellant had the valid reason for not to file the appeal within the period of limitation, the aforesaid officer can accept the appeal after recording such reasons even after 60 days period. Observing this provision, the applicant has filed the appeal before the Prant officer after a long time span of 33 years in the present case. It does not seem that the Prant officer has found any valid and satisfactory reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal which has been filed after delay. However, the Prant officer himself can take a discretionary decision in this regard. The applicant has not stated any exceptional reason or circumstances for the delay in regard to the decision of the Prant officer. Considering this fact, the conclusion of the Collector that, the Prant officer's order is proper and it is not appropriate to interfere with it, seems proper. Because the impugned entry no920 was made in the year 1979 and the applicant has raised the dispute after a lapse of long time span of 33 years. No any reasonable and clear reasons are found for delay. Equity helps the vigilant. With regard to delay, the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, viz.
(1) AIR 1981 Supreme Court 7331981 Cri. L.J. 293, (2) 1982 GLH 6824, (3) 2009(3) Crimes (HC) 523, (4) 1995(1) GLH 549,(5) 2003(2) GCD(UJ) 68, 1999(4) GCD 2822: AIR 1999 GUJ 147 & (5) 1972 Supreme Court 749 etc. are required to be taken into consideration. The revenue records are for fiscal objectives. Right, interest, inheritance, credibility of the sale deed are under the jurisdiction of the Civil court.
Nathabhai Chhaganbhai has not raised the dispute during his lifetime. Moreover, the Collector is instructed to take immediate action with regard to the applicant's application filed in SIT on 20/06/17. Thus, as it does not appear to be interfered with the order of the Collector, the submissions of the applicant are not acceptable.
ORDER The revision application of the applicant Mr. Manuji Nathaji and others, residents of village:Narimaanpura, Taluka: Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad, in regard to the mutation entry No.920 of the land situated Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Oct 07 06:24:21 IST 2017 C/SCA/17516/2017 ORDER at moje Vanzar, Taluka Daskroi is rejected. The order of the Collector, Ahmedabad vide NoLB / R. A. No51 / 2013, dated 26/08/13 is hereby confirmed. The Collector is directed to take immediate action in regard to the applicant's application in SIT, date20/06/17.
Signed and Stamped today on 29/07/2017."
3 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. The reasonings assigned by the S.S.R.D. speak for themselves. The issue with regard to the legality and validity of the revenue entry No.920 dated 25th July 1979 came to be raised after thirty three years.
4 Let me assume for the moment that the applicants have a good case so far as their rights, title and interest in the subject land is concerned, yet having regard to the gross delay, I am not inclined to interfere with and disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the three revenue authorities in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It will be open for the applicants to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law to establish their claim over the subject land. It is not in dispute that the applicants are not in possession of the land. It is not in dispute that even during the lifetime of Nathaji Chhaganji Thakore, any dispute was raised with regard to the entry in question. In such circumstances, this application fails and is hereby rejected.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Oct 07 06:24:21 IST 2017 C/SCA/17516/2017 ORDER chandresh Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Oct 07 06:24:21 IST 2017