Gujarat High Court
Dahyagiri @ Dineshgiri Kasigiri ... vs Secretary (Appleals) & 4 on 3 March, 2016
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/515/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 515 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1874 of 2016
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 515 of 2016
==========================================================
DAHYAGIRI @ DINESHGIRI KASIGIRI GOSWAMIN & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
SECRETARY (APPLEALS) & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BA SURTI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR PREMAL S RACHH, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 03/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Following are the prayers made in paragraph No.7 of the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India:-
7.(a) To quash and set aside the order dated 1182015 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/SRT/23/2011 by the learned SSRD at AnnexureI; the order dated 30102010 passed in RTS Appeal No. 150/2008 by the Collector, Surat at AnnexureE;
the order of the Deputy Collector, Bardoli dated 2532013 passed in Appeal No. 69 of 2011 at AnnexureG; the order dated 1482008 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bardoli Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Wed Mar 09 00:48:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/515/2016 ORDER Prant, in RTS Appeal No. 82 of 2006 (New No. 68 of 2008) at AnnexureD;
(b) Be pleased to direct the Mamlatdar, Palsana to restore the entry no. 1076 dated 2381982 which is in the name of petitioner Dahyagiri @ Dineshgiri Kasigiri Goswami;
(c) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay implementation, operation and effect of the impugned dated 1182015 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/SRT/23/2011 by the learned SSRD; the order dated 30102010 passed in RTS Appeal No. 150/2008 by the Collector Surat; the order of the Deputy collector, Bardoli dated 2532013 passed in Appeal No. 69 of 2011; the order dated 1482008 passed by the Deputy Collector, Bardoli Prant at AnnexureD, in RTS Appeal No. 82 of 2006 (New No. 68 of 2008); and be pleased to direct the Mamlatdar, Palsana to restore the entry no. 1076 dated 2381982 which is in the name of petitioner Dahyagiri @ Dineshgiri Kashigiri Goswami;
(d) Be pleased to direct the mamlatdar, Palsana to cancel the entry no. 2958 dated 2532013 mutated in the name of late Amrutigiri Kashigiri Goswami and also the Entry No. 3280 dated 2532013 mutated in the name of the legal heirs of the late Amrutgiri Kashigiri Goswami i.e. respondent nos. 5.1 to 5.4.
(e) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased of this petition, be pleased to direct the mamlatdar, Palsana to cancel the entry no. 2958 dated 2532013 mutated in the name of late Amrutigiri Kashigiri Goswami and also the Entry No. 3280 dated 2532013 mutated in the name of the legal heirs of the late Amrutgiri Kashigiri Goswami i.e. respondent nos. 5.1 to 5.4. Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Wed Mar 09 00:48:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/515/2016 ORDER
(f) To pass any other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper and in the interest of justice.
2. It appears from the facts of the case that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 99, 115(paiki) Block No. 94 admeasuring H-1-95-24 sq. meters was originally belonging to Kashigiri Dineshgiri Goswami, father of the petitioner No. 1 and grandfather of respondent No. 5.1 to 5.4, who passed away on 29/12/1970 and on his death, Entry No. 469 was recorded in the record of right -village Form No. 6 on 17/4/1971 in favour of the petitioner No.2-widow of Kashigiri (deceased), the petitioner No.1 was minor at the relevant, respondent No. 5-(deceased) Amrutgiri Kashigiri Goswami (father of the respondent No. 5.1 to 5.4), and one Oledin Jamnagiri. Such entry was then cancelled on the ground that death certificate was not produced. It was thereafter, Entry No. 797 was mutated on 30.03.1978 only in the name of petitioner No.2- deceased Bhikhiben, the, widow of Kashigiri Goswami. Such entry was certified on 23/10/1978. Thereafter Entry No. 1076 was recorded on 23/08/1982 in favour of the petitioner No.1 on the basis of agreement executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 by deceased Bhikhiben which is called as "Vahechan Lekh" as stated in Form No. 6 of record of rights.
Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Wed Mar 09 00:48:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/515/2016 ORDER
3. The above entry was challenged by the deceased Amrutgiri Kasigiri Goswami- the father of respondent No. 5.1 to 5.4 by filing R.T.S Appeal No. 82 of 2006 before the Deputy Collector, who accepted the appeal and cancelled the Entry Nos. 797 and 1076 vide his order dated 14/08/2008. The petitioners unsuccessfully carried the matter up to the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) who vide his order dated 11/08/2015, rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioners. It is against the said order of the Secretary, present petition is filed before this Court.
4. It appears that pending the petition, the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 5.1 to 5.4 arrived at a settlement as per which they have agreed to restore Entry No. 1076 which was mutated in the name of the petitioner no. 1. Copy of such settlement agreement stated to be signed by the parties is placed on record of the petition. With the settlement agreement affidavits of two daughters of respondent No.5, named Shobhanben and Varshaben, are also attached wherein they have stated that they have no objection if the Entry No. 1076 is restored.
Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Wed Mar 09 00:48:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/515/2016 ORDER
5. Learned advocates for the private parties submitted that now since their clients-the petitioner no.1 and respondent Nos. 5.1 to 5.4 have entered into the settlement agreement as per which grievance against the Entry No. 1076 no longer survives, this Court may quash and set aside the impugned orders.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Raval, when was asked, as to whether if the impugned orders are quashed based on the request of learned advocates for the private parties considering the settlement arrived at between the private parties, the interest of the State will in any way be affected, Mr. Raval stated that the original Entry No. 1076 was disturbed on account of the appeal preferred by the father of the respondent Nos. 5.1 to 5.4 who was the appellant before the Deputy Collector and since they have no grievance against Entry No. 1076 on arriving at settlement with the petitioner No.1, the Court may pass appropriate order as the interest of the State is not going to be affected in any way.
7. In view of the above, the Court finds that when, based on the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent Nos. 5.1 to 5.4, the respondent No. 5.1 to Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Wed Mar 09 00:48:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/515/2016 ORDER 5.4 have stated that they have no objection if the entry No. 1076 is restored and when interest of the State is not affected by such settlement, no prejudice will be caused to any of the respondents, if the impugned orders are set aside as requested by learned Advocates for the private parties.
8. In above view of the matter, without going into the merits of the challenge made against the impugned orders, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector, the Collector and the Secretary are quashed and set aside. The petition stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute.
9. Since the main petition is disposed of, Civil Application shall not survive, hence, Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.
(C.L.SONI, J.) MANOJ KUMAR Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Wed Mar 09 00:48:27 IST 2016