Gujarat High Court
Jagdishchandra Ramanlal Choksi vs Jayantilal M Joshi & on 18 January, 2013
Author: M.R.Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
JAGDISHCHANDRA RAMANLAL CHOKSI....Petitioner(s)V/SJAYANTILAL M JOSHI C/SCA/11715/1994 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11715 of 1994 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH =========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ JAGDISHCHANDRA RAMANLAL CHOKSI....Petitioner(s) Versus JAYANTILAL M JOSHI & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR AR MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS NISHA THAKORE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 PARTY-IN-PERSON, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 18/01/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara in R.T.S. Appeal No.19 of 1992; order dated 04.08.1993 passed by the Collector, Vadodara in R.T.S. Revision Application No.27 of 1993 as well as order dated 02.03.1994 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application S.R.D. No.23 of 1993 by which, the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner, being mutation entry No.4373 dated 20.10.1990 certified on 01.12.1990, has been set aside.
2. Having heard Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No.2 and considering the impugned orders, it appears that the petitioner has purchased the land in question by registered sale deed from the respondent No.1 herein and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records being mutation entry No.4373 dated 20.10.1990 which came to be certified on 01.12.1990. That the said entry came to be challenged by the respondent No.1 herein challenging the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. That the Deputy Collector, Vadodara set aside the mutation entry mainly on the ground that the transaction in favour of the petitioner is in breach of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act as well as the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code). The same came to be confirmed by the Collector, Vadodara (revisional authority).
3. As per the catena of decisions of this Court in the case of Popat Khima Ramani (Decd.) through his legal heirs V/s. Collector, Rajkot & Ors. reported in 2002(3) GLR 2256 as well as the decision in the case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel V/s. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2005(2) GLR 1370 and another decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P.O.A. Holder Ashok J. Patel V/s. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel & Ors. reported in 2005(3) GLR 2233, while considering the dispute with respect to the mutation entry in R.T.S. proceedings, the revisional authority has no jurisdiction and/or authority to consider the breach of any other law and if the appropriate authority is of the opinion that by such transaction, there is a breach of provisions of any law in that case, appropriate authority is required to initiate appropriate independent proceedings under the said Act.
4. Under the circumstances, as such, the impugned orders passed by the authorities cancelling the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the entry in favour of the petitioner is required to be restored with liberty in favour of the appropriate authority to initiate appropriate independent proceedings for breach of any other law, if any, more particularly, in the present case, either breach of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act as well as the Bombay Land Revenue Code (Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code).
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. Impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside and mutation entry No.4373 dated 20.10.1990 certified on 01.12.1990 which was in favour of the petitioner is hereby ordered to be restored. However, it is observed that it will be open for the appropriate authority to initiate appropriate independent proceedings for breach of any law either Bombay Tenancy Act or Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and as and when the same is initiated, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits without, in any way, being influenced by the mutation entry in question. It is also observed that merely on the basis of the mutation entry in the revenue records, the petitioner may not claim any right, title or interest in the land and if there is any dispute with respect to the title, either party can initiate proceedings before the Civil Court and the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of the evidence led. With this, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) Hitesh Page 4 of 4