Gujarat High Court
Jamabhai Karshanbhai Bharvad ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 November, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1619 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
JAMABHAI KARSHANBHAI BHARVAD (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ASIT B JOSHI(2567) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 5
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1,2,3 and 4. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined Constitution of India being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 - Authority in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/AMD/43/2016 confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2 and has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 11.01.2018 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision Application no.43/2016, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, contrary to the provision of the Code, dehors the settled legal proposition and in gross violation of principles of natural justice in the interest of justice & equity.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, execution of the impugned order dtd.11.01.2018 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision Application no.43/2016, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to remand the case to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the submission made hereinabove in accordance with the settled legal proposition as held by this Hon'ble Court and to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of subject land in the interest of justice and equity.
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of Justice."
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus:
3.1 The petitioner herein purchased the land bearing Block No.136 of village: Melasana, Tal. Sanand, District :
Ahmedabad, admeasuring 0-45-53 sq. mtrs. of land by way of a registered sale deed, dated 24.07.2002, bearing registration Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined No.758, which is duly produced on record at Annexure - B to the petition. Upon verification of the revenue records, the 7/12 extract reflected the name of the respondent No.5 as sole owner and occupier of the subject land.
3.2 The petitioner applied for mutation of entry based on the registered sale deed dated 24.07.2002 wherein, the Circle Officer mutated the provisional entry No.1918 on 02.01.2013 in favour of the petitioner and issued Notice under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
3.3 The respondent No.5 - seller of the subject land raised objection in view thereof, disputed case being RTS Case No.5/2013 came to be registered before the respondent No.4 wherein, by order dated 04.05.2013, the revenue entry No.1918 mutated in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the respondent No.3 being RTS Appeal No.147 of 2013 wherein, the respondent No.3 by order dated 06.08.2014 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 by way of Revision Application No.605 of 2014, which also came to be rejected by Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined order dated 19.11.2015 confirming the order passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
3.4 The petitioner preferred Revision Application No.43/2016 before the respondent No.1, which came to be rejected by order dated 11.01.2018. The aforesaid has given rise to the filing of the present petition for the prayers as referred to herein above.
4. Mr. Y.V. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities are in gross violation of the settled position of law. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 being in receipt of the amount of pursuant to the said sale deed, has no locus to dispute the mutation of entry in the revenue record pursuant to the registered sale deed bearing registration No.758, dated 24.07.2002, entered into between the respondent No.5 and the petitioner herein. It is also submitted that the said sale deed has attained finality and is not subject matter of challenge before any of the authority. It is submitted that it is settled position of law that, the revenue authorities are required to mutate the entry of a registered document produced before it. To substantiate his submission, reliance is Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined placed on the decision rendered in case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel Thro' POA Holder Ashok J. Patel Vs. Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) GLH 657 and the decision in case of Patel Balkrishna Chhotalal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) GLH 661.
4.1 Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate submitted that the competent authorities have erred in declining to mutate the revenue entry pursuant to the registered sale deed bearing registration No.758, dated 24.07.2002. It is submitted that the respondents authorities have erred in observing that the petitioner had not executed registered sale deed from all the occupiers. However, the respondents authorities ought to have appreciated that, at the relevant point of time when the sale deed was executed, only the name of respondent No.5 was reflected in the revenue records. Moreover, if at all the other occupiers were aggrieved by the execution of the sale deed, the same ought to have been challenged. However, such objection at behest of the respondent No.5 being the seller of the property to the petitioner herein on behalf of the other occupiers, is such that the same is unsustainable in eye of law. Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed.
5. Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1,2,3 and 4 relied on the orders passed by the competent authorities and submitted that the impugned orders require no interference considering the fact that the petitioner herein entered into a registered sale deed only with the respondent No.5. It is submitted that one Vagjibhai Vhudarbhai was a co-owner and the names of legal heirs of the said co- owner came to be mutated in the revenue record on 16.04.2008 by revenue entry No.1302 as the co-owner expired in the year 2003. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent authorities declined to certify the entry in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record upon objections by the legal heirs of the respondent No.5 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 135D of the Code. It is submitted that the authorities have concurrently declined to certify the entry No.1918, dated 02.01.2013 in the revenue record.
6. Having heard the learned advocate and learned AGP appearing for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined the petitioner herein purchased the land-in-question by way of a registered sale deed bearing registration No.758, dated 24.07.2002. At the time when the petitioner purchased the land, the 7/12 extract only reflected the name of the respondent No.5 and in view thereof, the petitioner entered into the sale deed with the respondent No.5. 6.1 The co-owner, Vagjibhai Bhudarbhai expired in the year 2003 however, no objection was raised by the co-owner to the sale deed entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.5. It was after upon his death, the names of legal heirs of the co-owners were mutated in the revenue record on 16.04.2008. When the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for mutation of entry of the registered sale deed in the revenue record, the provisional entry was posted in the revenue record being entry No.1918, dated 02.01.2013.
7. Upon issuance of notice under Section 135(D) of the Code, the respondent No.5 objected to the mutation of the entry for the subject land, which resulted in disputed case being RTS Case No.5/2013.
7.1 In the opinion of this Court, the respondent No.5 has no Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined locus to object to the registration of revenue entry pursuant o the sale deed bearing registration No.758, dated 24.07.2002, wherein, the respondent No.5 has sold the property to the petitioner herein; having received the amount by way of consideration. The said sale deed has also attained finality. On the aforesaid ground, the objections at the behest of the respondent No.5 being seller of the land to the petitioner, are unsustainable in eye of law.
8. At this stage, this Court deems it fit to refer to the ratio laid down in case of Bhailalbhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 (0) GUJHC 10715 wherein, paragraph 14 reads thus:
"14. To sum up therefore it can be said that the petitioners after having sold the property to the respondents No.3 & 4 for a valuable consideration through registered Sale Deed have lost their right and interest in the land. As a consequence thereof they have also lost their right to challenge the permission granted to the respondents No.3 & 4 by the respondent No.2. Further, on merits the petitioners are guilty of concealment of material fact, namely, consideration for which they had executed the Sale Deed in favour of the respondents No.3 & 4 and lastly on merits also the impugned order of the respondent No.2 is neither illegal nor contrary to law. Consequently I do not find any merit in this petition which is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."
8.1 It is also apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case of Jayantibhai Manchharam Merie Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) GCD 2612. Paragraph 7 of the said Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined decision reads thus:
"7. In view of the above and for the reasons sated above, petition succeeds in part. The impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, Secretary (Appeals), State of Gujarat dated 17.3.2004 in Revision Application No.5 of 1997 as well as order passed by the Collector, Valsad dated 24.6.1996 passed in RTS Review Case No.300 of 1993 are hereby modified to the extent that entry in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed be continued and/ or certified, however with liberty in favour of the appropriate authority to initiate appropriate proceedings for alleged breach of Bombay Tenancy Act and / or under Section 84 C of the Bombay Tenancy Act and certification of the entry in favour of the petitioner shall not be bar in favour of the appropriate authority to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and on merits and as and when such an proceedings are initiated the same may be considered in accordance with law and at that stage whatever defences are available to the petitioner are kept open. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent."
9. Considering the ratio laid down in case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel Thro' POA Holder Ashok J. Patel Vs. Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) GLH 657, there is a presumption with respect to the correctness of a registered document and in view thereof, the entry with respect to a registered document is required to be posted in the revenue record. It is beyond the domain of the revenue authorities to opine on the correctness or validity of such document.
9.1 In the facts of the present case, the revenue authorities have proceeded to arrive at the finding of fact that, the petitioner has not executed registered sale deed from all the Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1619/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined occupiers which, in the opinion of this Court, is beyond the purview of of the revenue authorities exercising powers under Rule 108 of the Rules. The revenue authorities are required to post the entry upon due verification as provided under Section 135(C) and 135(D) of the Code, without delving into the title of the document.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.43/2016 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.4 is directed to certify the entry bearing Entry No.1918 of the registered sale deed bearing registration No.758 dated 24.07.2002, in the revenue record, upon receipt of this order.
11. The present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) NEHA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:20:43 IST 2025