Gujarat High Court
Rakesh Shivbhagwan Agrawala vs Talati-Cum-Mantri on 1 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2002)4GLR2929
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
JUDGMENT Jayant Patel, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order passed by all the lower authorities, namely, Deputy Collector, Dist. Collector and the State Government in exercise of their powers under Gujarat Land Revenue Rules.
2. The short facts of the case are that one entry was mutated being Entry No. 2607 dated 27.5.1983. After the mutation of the said entry the same was certified on 30.6.1983. Thereafter, suomotu powers were exercised and as per the notice dated 1.8.84 the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the entry should not be cancelled. The main ground of the notice was that no permission under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is obtained. Another ground was that the sale deed is not produced. The third ground was that notice under section 135D of the Act is not served upon the person concerned and the fourth ground was that the land is belonging to Devastnam and the sale is shown to have been made by the pujari and therefore neither the pujari has power to sell the land nor in any case the said sale can not be made without permission of the Charity Commissioner. Ultimately, the order dated 8.9.84 was passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara whereby the said entry was cancelled. Against the said decision of the Deputy Collector appeal being Appeal No. 4/87 was preferred and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 14.8.87 against which revision preferred by the petitioner herein being Revision Application No.7/89 and the said revision ultimately by order dated 21.11.1990 is dismissed.
3. It may be noted that the appellant before the Deputy Collector who preferred Appeal No. 5/87 claimed to be the purchaser of the land in question had challenged the decision of the appellate authority before the State Government by preferring Revision Application No.6/89 and the said revision is also dismissed but no writ petition is preferred before this court nor any reference is made in the present petition about the same. The order came to be passed by all the authorities mainly on the ground that no permission of the competent authority is obtained under the Act, the sale deed was not produced before Talati and that no notice under section 135D of the Bombay Revenue Code was served upon the person concerned and it is also observed by the authorities that no permission of the Charity Commissioner was obtained and in any case the sale could not have been made by the pujari.
4. Mr. Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of this court in the matter of Siddharthbhai B. Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in 1999(2) G.L.H.82 and in the matter of Evergreen Apartment Coop. Housing Society v. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State reported in 32(1) GLR 113 for contending that the observations made by the Revenue authority regarding the validity of the sale would come against him in other proceedings and, therefore, this court should interfere with the orders passed by the State Government and lower revenue authorities. I am afraid that this contention of Mr. Sanjanwala can not be accepted. In the present case the observations made by the authorities are only to be construed for the purpose of revenue entry only and further it is well settled that the observations made by the revenue authority for the purpose of cancelling the entry would not prejudice the case of either party in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
5. This court is not expressing any opinion on the findings of the lower authorities. However, it is well settled that the revenue entries are having the value for fiscal purposes and therefore they are having presumptive value in nature and by mutation entry or cancellation thereof the title of the land is not in any manner affected. If any party is aggrieved by the mutation or cancellation thereof, for the purpose of establishing the title the proper remedy would be competent civil court. In the present case the lower authorities have concurrently found and therefore this court finds no case to interfere in exercise of powers under Art of the Constitution, and if the petitioner is so advised, he may prefer a civil suit for establishing the title in accordance with law. It is needless to clarify that the observations made by the revenue authorities in the impugned order shall not prejudice the case of either party in appropriate proceedings before appropriate authority.
6. Subject to aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed and rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.