Gujarat High Court
Bagshree Co-Op Housing Society Ltd & vs State Of Gujarat & 8 on 24 July, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9736 of 2017
==========================================================
BAGSHREE CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 8....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MS NISHA THAKORE, AGP - ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AS VAKIL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 8 - 9
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4 , 5.2.1 - 5.2.3 , 7.1 - 7.3
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1 , 6.1 - 6.2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 24/07/2017
ORAL ORDER
1 On 4th July 2017, the following order was passed:
"The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners informs that it has come to his notice that the respondent no.5.1 viz.Maniben Talsibhai; the respondent no.6.1 viz.Harkhaben widow of Dhanabhai Ishwarbhai and the respondent no.6.2 viz.Manubhai Dhanabhai are passed away. He would be filing an appropriate application for substitution of the legal heirs.
Post the matter on 24/07/2017. In the meantime, the necessary steps shall be taken for substitution of the legal heirs.
Mr. Apurva Vakil, the learned counsel has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondents nos.8 and 9. He would be filing his appearance shortly on behalf of the respondents nos.8 and 9."
2 It appears that no steps have been taken to substitute the legal Page 1 of 14 HC-NIC Page 1 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER heirs of the original respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7. In such circumstances, Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel makes a request that he may be permitted to delete the respondents Nos.5.1, 6.1 and 6.2. The request is granted. In such circumstances, the respondents Nos.5.1, 6.1 and 6.2 are ordered to be deleted from the causetitle.
3 By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 28th February 2017 passed by the Special Secretary of the Revenue Department (Appeals), 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 7th March 2008 in the Revision Application No.162 of 2006.
4 The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under:
4.1 The applicant No.1 is a Cooperative Housing Society registered at a point of time under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. The applicant No.2 claims to be the Secretary of the Society.
4.2 Indisputably, the registration of the Society under the Act has been cancelled. Such action on the part of the authorities is now a subjectmatter of challenge before this Court.
4.3 In such circumstances, a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. A.S. Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.8 and 9 that the applicant No.1 has ceased to be a legal entity. According to him, if the registration of the Society has been cancelled, then the applicant No.2 cannot be said to be holding an office of the Secretary.Page 2 of 14
HC-NIC Page 2 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER According to him, this petition is not maintainable at the end of the applicants.
4.4 In support of his submission, Mr. Vakil, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Section 20 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Section 20 of the Act reads as under:
"20. Cancellation of registration. (1) The Registrar shall make an order cancelling the registration of a society if it transfers the whole of its assets and liabilities to another society, or amalgamates with another society,or divides itself into two or more societies, or if its affairs are wound up or it has not commenced business within a reasonable time of its registration or has ceased to function.
(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall be published in the Official Gazette.
(3) The society shall, from the date of such order of cancellation, be deemed to be dissolved and shall cease to exist as a corporate body."
4.5 It would not be necessary for me to go into this issue, as I am not inclined to entertain this petition on many grounds. However, I shall deal with this issue at a little later stage.
4.6 The dispute between the parties relates to a parcel of land bearing survey No.331 paiki situated at village: Thaltej, Taluka: Daskroi, District:
Ahmedabad. The original owners of this parcel of land were the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7. The Society, by way of three separate registered sale deeds dated 6th January 1976, purchased the land in question from the original owners i.e. the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7. On the strength of the three registered sale deeds, three entries came to be mutated in the record of rights bearing Nos.5314, 5315 and 5316 respectively. These entries were pencil entries in the record of rights. On 28th June 1978, the Deputy Mamlatdar cancelled all the three entries on Page 3 of 14 HC-NIC Page 3 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER the premise that the Society had failed to obtain the necessary permission from the competent authority under the U.L.C. 4.7 It is important for me to note that the order passed by the Deputy Mamlatdar dated 28th June 1978 came to be challenged before the Deputy Collector by filing an appeal in the year 2004 i.e. almost after a period of twenty six years. The appeal came to be registered as the RTS/Appeal/Case No.88 of 2004. The Deputy Collector partly allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Mamlatdar for fresh consideration.
4.8 Being dissatisfied with such order, the respondents Nos.8 and 9 preferred a Special Civil Application No.13948 of 2005. This petition filed by the respondents Nos.8 and 9 came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 19th September 2005 in the following terms:
1. "Rule. Mr.NV Gandhi, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.3 ? contesting party, Mr.M.R. Mengade, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Rakesh Parikh appearing on behalf of Mr.DC Dave, learned advocate, waives service of rule for the respondent Nos.6/1 to 6/3.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad dtd.21/4/2005 in RTS Appeal No.88 of 2004.
4. It appears from the record that the entries in favour of the respondent No.3 herein ? original appellant being Entry no.5314, 5315 and 5316 came to be quashed and set aside by the Mamlatdar, Daskroi by order dtd.28/6/1978 against which the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad by way of preferring RTS Appeal No.88 of 2004 after a period of almost 24 years. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner Page 4 of 14 HC-NIC Page 4 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER subsequently purchased the property in question and inspite of the fact that the petitioner was affected by the impugned order and though observed by the Deputy collector in its order that the petitioner is also an affected party, the Deputy Collector by an order dtd.21/4/2005, partly allowed the said appeal quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Daskroi dtd.28/6/78 by which the Mamlatdar set aside the Entry No.5314, 5315 and 5316 which were made in favour of the respondent NO.3 and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar, Daskroi, by condoning the delay of 24 years caused in preferring the said appeal.
5. Number of submissions have been made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. However as the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, this Court does not propose to consider the case on merits and proposes to remand the matter to the Dy.Collector for passing an order afresh in accordance with law inclusive of the question of limitation, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners as well.
6. This Court has exercised its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Dy.Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad though there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirl Pool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, reported in (1998) 8 SCC page 1, as the impugned order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the same is in breach of the principle of natural justice, this Court has entertained the petition and decided and disposed of the same.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, and in view of the fact that before passing the impugned order dtd.21/4/2005, the Dy.Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad has not afforded any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the same is in breach of principle of natural justice, the impugned order dtd.21/4/2005 passed by the Dy.Collector, Viramgram Prant, Ahmedabad in RTS Appeal No.88 of 2005 is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Dy.Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well.
8. The petitioners to make an application for joining them as party before the Dy.Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad within a period of two weeks from today and in case of filing such application by the petitioners, the Dy.Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad shall allow the said application and shall pass appropriate order in the appeal preferred by the respondent No.3 in accordance with law inclusive of the question of limitation, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as Page 5 of 14 HC-NIC Page 5 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of thee months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it is ultimately for the Dy.Collector to pass appropriate order after hearing all the concerned parties inclusive of the petitioners, as aforesaid. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to cost. D.S. Permitted."
4.9 Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court referred to above, the Deputy Collector took up the appeal for hearing. The Deputy Collector, by his order dated 14th March 2006, dismissed the appeal.
4.10 Being dissatisfied, the applicants herein filed a revision application before the Collector. The Collector, by his order dated 7th March 2008, rejected the revision application, thereby affirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector.
4.11 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, the applicants preferred a revision application before the S.S.R.D. The S.S.R.D., by his order dated 28th February 2017, rejected the revision application holding as under:
"(3) Upon considering the submission of the applicant, impugned order, documents on record, it has been observed that (1) As per observations and details of the impugned order, on the basis of entries of three different registered sale deed in statement of rights of the village Form No.6 with respect to the land situated at moje: Thaltej, Tal.
Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad bearing survey no.331 paiki, mutation entry No.5314, 5315, 5316 dated 08.04.1978 have been cancelled by the Deputy Mamlatdar (Revenue) on 28.06.1978. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed appeal before the Deputy Collector, Viramgam. The Deputy Collector, vide its order No.RTS/Appeal/CAse No.88/04 dated 21.04.2005, has partly allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the Mamlatdar for hearing the mater afresh. Being aggrieved, the opponent No.11 has preferred Special Civil Application No.13948 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 19.09.2005, remanded back the matter to the Deputy Page 6 of 14 HC-NIC Page 6 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER Collector for hearing the same afresh. Upon hearing the matter, the Deputy Collector, vide its order No.RTS/High Court Remand/Appeal/Case No.95/2005 dated 14.03.2006, has rejected the appeal against the said order, the applicant has filed revision application before the Collector, Ahmedabad. Under the impugned order, the Collector has rejected the revision application of the applicant and confirmed the order dated 14.03.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam. The applicants herin have filed the petition after 25 years of cancellation of the impugned mutation entries and the titles of the land have been changed due to various transactions. Since, the applicant does not establish the defect in the impugned order, the Collector has passed the order by rejecting the revision application of the applicant.
(2) Upon considering the records produced and the impugned order, under the mutation entry No.3641 dated 30.11.1968, the names of predecessor of opponent Nos.1 to 10, Talshibhai Ishwarbhai and Dhanabhai Ishwarbhai have been entered in the land records, who have executed registered sale deed dated 15.01.1976 in favour of the applicant. A mutation entry No.5087 dated 10.02.1976 has been made in this respect. The competent officer, vide letter date13.05.1977, after verification, by making endorsement of "cancelled", has cancelled the same. The impugned mutation entry Nos.5314, 5315, 5316 have been cancelled by stating that the earlier mutation entry no.5087 has been cancelled. After the said cancellation, mutation entry no.5305 dated 06.03.1978 of inheritance has been made due to death Dhanabhai Ishwarbhai as well as mutation entry no.5919 dated 06.01.1983 due to death of Talshibhai. Due to inheritance, heirs, Haribhai Chhotabhai and others have executed sale deed which is mutated vide mutation entry nos.7081 and 7082. Mutation entry No.7229 has been made in respect of death of the purchasers(s). Thereafter, on the basis of registered sale deed in respect of the said disputed land, in favour of Shri Mihir Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The same has been mutated vide mutation entry no.7357 and 7360 in the village records and the same have been certified. The Additional District registrar, Cooperative Society has passed order dated 06.05.2002 for bifurcating the Mihir Cooperative Society into six Cooperative Societies. A mutation entry No.8811 has been made in this respect. The names of opponent Nos.11 and 12 have been entered mutation entry No.9050 and 9053. After 25 years of successively sale of the impugned land, the petitioner has been filed.
(3) Considering the details of the mutation entries, mutation entry no.5314 dated 08.04.1978, with regard to registered sale deed no.295 dated 06.01.1976 in respect of 6131 sq. yards land; mutation entry no.5315 dated 08.04.1978 with regard to registered sale deed no.293 dated 06.01.1976 in respect of 6131 sq. yards and mutation entry no.5316 dated 08.04.1978 with regard to registered sale deed no.296 dated 06.01.1976 in respect of 6131 sq. yards of land has been made in Page 7 of 14 HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER favour of the applicant. The same have been cancelled. The documentary evidence with respect that the present opponent - original parties, Talsibhai and Dhanabhai have had sold the disputed land on 15.01.1976 by executing sale deed in favour of the applicants and thereby the sale deed in respect of the impugned land has been cancelled by the competent Court, have not been produced. Moreover, mutation entry no.5078 in respect of the said sale has been cancelled with endorsement "cancelled" vide letter dated 13.05.1977 of the competent officer. Therefore, documentary evidence with respect that against the letter dated 13.05.1977 of the concerned competent officer as also any petitioner for cancellation of the said mutation entry, has been filed before the Competent Revenue Court or competent authority, has not been produced. Moreover, documentary evidence with respect to appeal preferred before competent authority for cancellation of mutation entry nos.5314, 5315, 5316 at the relevant point in time, has not been produced.
(4) The mutation entry no.5078 dated 10.02.1976 has been cancelled by the competent officer with endorsement "cancelled" vide letter dated 13.05.1977 of the competent officer. As per para 11(1) of Resolution No.HKP/102003/2727/J of Revenue Department in respect of maintaining the Record of Rights upto date, the parties are required to file appeal / revision against the relevant order passed by the competent officer.
(5) The District Registrar, Cooperative Society (Rural) has passed order dated 05.02.2003 with respect to cancellation of registration of the applicant - society. As per observation made in the order passed by the Collector, the applicant could not file appeal on behalf of the society. The documentary evidence with respect of appeal filed before Civil Court against execution of impugned order and thereby obtaining stay order, has not been produced. The applicant has filed Civil Suit No.363 of 2004 before the Civil Court. Further, the applicant has preferred Special Civil Application No.5392 of 2004 before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court which is pending at the stage of final hearing. The parties are bound by the orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble High Court and in the civil litigations, from time to time.
(6) The applicants have filed the petition after 25 years of cancellation of impugned mutation entries and the titles of the land have been changed due to various transactions. Therefore, the petition is barred by the Limitation Act, 1963. No rational reasons have been submitted in respect of the delay. As per Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, 2002 Law Suit (Guj) 641 : Heirs of Ramaben V/s. Natvarlal Chandara, it has been established that reasonable and clinching reasons should be given with respect to delay.
In the circumstances, for the aforesaid reasons, no intervention is required Page 8 of 14 HC-NIC Page 8 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER to be made in the impugned order passed by the Collector. Therefore, the following order is passed."
ORDER The present Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/AMD/32/08 of the applicant in respect of land bearing survey No.331 paiki situated at moje :
Thaltej, Tal. Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad, has been rejected. The impugned order No.LB/R.A.No.162/2006 dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad is confirmed.
Under my signature and seal, on today i.e. 28.02.2017.
Ordered by and on behalf of Governor of State of Gujarat.
Sd/ Principal Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) Ahmedabad."
5 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the S.S.R.D., the applicants are here by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6 Mr. N.V. Gandhi, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that his clients are the lawful owners of the property in question. According to Mr. Gandhi, way back in the year 1976, by three registered sale deeds, the property was purchased by the Society. The original owners i.e. the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 executed the sale deeds in favour of the applicants. According to Mr. Gandhi, his clients could be said to have acquired right over the property by purchase. In such circumstances, the authority concerned was obliged to mutate the name of the Society in the record of rights in accordance with the provisions of Section 135(C) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
Mr. Gandhi would submit that the second proviso to Section 135(C) of the Code provides that any person acquiring a right by virtue of the Page 9 of 14 HC-NIC Page 9 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER registered document is exempted from the obligation to report to the designated officer. The learned counsel would submit that the Society did approach the authority concerned and got the pencil entries effected in the record of rights. Mr. Gandhi would submit that the authority concerned committed a serious error in cancelling the entries i.e. the pencil entries on the premise that necessary permission under the U.L.C. Act was not obtained by the Society before the purchase.
7 Mr. Gandhi submits that although the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 transferred the land in favour of the applicants, yet later, they transferred the very same property in favour of one another party, and that party, in turn, transferred the land in favour of the respondents Nos.8 and 9. Mr. Gandhi seeks to rely upon Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is with regard to 'operation of transfer'. Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:
"8. Operation of transfer.--Unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof. Such incidents include, where the property is land, the easements annexed thereto, the rents and profits thereof accruing after the transfer, and all things attached to the earth; and, where the property is machinery attached to the earth, the moveable parts thereof; and, where the property is a house, the easements annexed thereto, the rent thereof accruing after the transfer, and the locks, keys, bars, doors, windows, and all other things provided for permanent use therewith; and, where the property is a debt or other actionable claim, the securities therefor (except where they are also for other debts or claims not transferred to the transferee), but not arrears of interest accrued before the transfer; and, where the property is money or other property yielding income, the interest or income thereof accruing after the transfer takes effect."
8 Mr. Gandhi has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court: (1) Balvantrai Ambaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No.5464 of 2014 decided on 8th May 2014], and (2) Page 10 of 14 HC-NIC Page 10 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through Power of Attorney vs. Ashok J. Patel [2005 (3) GLH 657]. The ratio of both the decisions is that an entry in the record of rights must be registered on production of a registered document. The validity of the document has got to be adjudicated by a competent authority. To put it in other words, according to Mr. Gandhi, where the sale was hit by any provision of law could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of cancellation of entry. Mr. Gandhi submits that his clients have filed the Regular Civil Suit No.363 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) for cancellation of the subsequent sale deed and also for a declaration that the Society is the true and lawful owner of the property in question. The suit is pending as on date for adjudication. Mr. Gandhi submits that he has prayed to admit the matter and quash the orders passed by the revenue authorities so far as the issue with regard to cancellation of the entries is concerned. He clarified that he has not prayed for any interim relief.
9 On the other hand, this petition has been vehemently opposed by Ms. Thakore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondent and Mr. A.S. Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.8 and 9. According to Ms. Thakore, the learned A.G.P., no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the authorities in passing the impugned orders. No interference is warranted at the end of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10 Ms. Thakore, the learned A.G.P. submits that the order passed by the Deputy Mamlatdar in the year 1978, came to be challenged before the Deputy Collector after almost a period of twenty six years. On such ground alone, the authority was justified in not entertaining the appeal.
Page 11 of 14HC-NIC Page 11 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER Ms. Thakore would submit that assuming for the moment without admitting that an error has been committed by the revenue authorities in going into the issue with regard to the validity of the sale transaction, yet this Court may decline to interfere at this stage, as the applicants have already filed a civil suit for declaration and cancellation of the subsequent sale deed. According to the learned A.G.P., the Civil Court is competent to adjudicate and declare the respective rights of the parties in the property in question.
11 Mr. Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.8 and 9 submits that his clients purchased the property in question by way of two registered sale deeds dated 28th February 1994 from Arvindbhai Kantibhai Patel, Jayantibhai Kantibhai Patel, Bhavnaben Kantibhai Patel, Amrutbhai Kashibhai, Mineshkumar Shantibhai and Haribhai Chhotabhai, Shantibhai Motibhai. According to Mr. Vakil, his clients are the third purchasers of the property in question. Mr. Vakil has admitted the submissions canvassed by the learned A.G.P., but, in addition to the same, he has raised an objection as regards the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable.
12 I have discussed this issue in the earlier part of my judgment.
13 In such circumstances, it is submitted by the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. Vakil, the learned counsel that there being no merit in this petition, the same be rejected.
14 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that I should not interfere with the impugned orders passed by the revenue Page 12 of 14 HC-NIC Page 12 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER authorities in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am saying so for two good reasons. First, the gross and inordinate delay on the part of the applicants in questioning the order passed by the Deputy Mamlatdar dated 28th June 1978, and secondly, the parties are already before the Civil Court. The Civil Court will now look into the matter and give an appropriate declaration as regards the right, title and interest of the parties in the property in question. At this point of time, admission simpliciter of this petition will also not serve any good purpose. Instead, I direct the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural to take up the Regular Civil Suit No.363 of 2004 for hearing and see to it that the same is disposed of with the judgment within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. I am sure that since this suit is of the year 2004, the issues must have been framed. I also take notice of the fact that the land has been fully developed by the respondents Nos.8 and 9.
15 In view of the aforesaid, I am not going into the issue with regard to the maintainability of this petition, as raised by Mr. Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.8 and 9.
16 In the result, this petition fails and is hereby rejected. It is needless to clarify that the mutation of entry in the record of rights is only for 'fiscal purpose'. The mutation of entry would not confer any right, title or interest in the property. The Civil Court shall decide the respective rights of the parties on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the revenue authorities in the impugned orders.
17 The issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit at the instance of a Society, whose registration has been cancelled, can be Page 13 of 14 HC-NIC Page 13 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017 C/SCA/9736/2017 ORDER raised by the respondents Nos.8 and 9 before the Civil Court. At this stage, Mr. Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.8 and 9 clarified that what was purchased by the Society in the year 1976 was 50% of the revenue survey No.331/1 paiki i.e. admeasuring 18,393 sq. yard, out of 36,786 sq. yard. Later on, his clients purchased the entire property i.e. 36,000 and odd sq. yard. of land.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 14 of 14 HC-NIC Page 14 of 14 Created On Fri Aug 18 23:46:48 IST 2017