Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vishal Jayanti Monparaand on 18 April, 2023
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6370 of 2023
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VISHAL JAYANTI MONPARAAND
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 18/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the petitioners-State.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-State of Gujarat and the Collector, Rajkot have challenged the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals)(for short 'the SSRD') in Review Application No.2 of 2020 filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Collector in Land- Page 1 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined Revision-211-Case No.12 of 2019 cancelling the conversion of the land admeasuring 4 Acres situated at Survey No.167 paiki at Village:Lothda, District: Rajkot.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1. The land situated at Village:Lothda, Taluka and District:Rajkot bearing Survey No.167 was initially allotted to total eleven persons in the year 197l under 'Sathni Scheme' by the Deputy Collector vide order date 31.05.1971.
3.2. Out of those eleven persons, late father of the respondent No.2 i.e. late Mombhai Patabhai Bharvad was also allotted land as Original Sathnidar in the year 1971 as a new tenure land by the Deputy Collector vide Page 2 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined allotment order dated 31.05.1971 under the Santhni Scheme upon mandatory fulfillment of certain conditions enumerated in the allotment order dated 31.05.1971 i.e. (i) the original Santhnidar/original allottes should have taken the possession of land in question at the time of allotment. (ii) the original Sathnidar/original allottees should have cultivated the land in question continuously for fifteen years. (iii) the original Sathnidar/original allottees should have been holding the possession of the land in question continuously for fifteen years and lastly,
(iv) the name of original Sathnidar/ original allottees should have been reflected in the Revenue Records since 1971.
3.3. The Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat on 19.02.2018 issued a Government Resolution whereby the original Page 3 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined Sathnidar/original allottees, if had not taken the possession of the land at the time said of allotment, then as per the said Government Resolution those original Sathnidar/original allottees were allowed to apply for taking the possession of the land allotted under the Sathni Scheme.
3.4. Respondent No.2, claiming to be legal heir of Late Mombhai Patabhai Bharvad (original Sathnidar/ original allottees) made an application dated 15.05.2018 before the Mamlatdar for getting his name mutated as possessor of the land in question and in view of allotment order dated 31.05.1971 and Government Resolution dated 19.02.2018 they became entitled to the possession of land in question.
3.5. The Mamlatdar, Rajkot vide letter dated Page 4 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined 17.05.2018 directed the Circle Officer, Rajkot to hand over the possession of the land in question to the respondent No.2 namely Thobhanbhai Dabhi and therefore, the Circle Officer-Rajkot vide letter dated 30.05.2018 prepared Rojkam and in presence of the panch- witnessess, handed over the possession of the land in dispute to the respondent No.2 and accordingly, the Entry No.2779 was mutated in the Revenue Records on 06.07.2018. 3.6. Thereafter, on 06.09.2018, the respondent No.2 made an application to the Mamlatdar for converting the land in dispute from the new tenure land to old tenure land and the Mamlatdar, Rajkot vide order dated 05.10.2018 passed an order of converting the land in dispute from new tenure land to old tenure land.
Page 5 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined 3.7. Respondent No.2 sold the land in question to the respondent No.1 namely Vishal Jayanti Monpara for the sale consideration of Rs.5,70,000/-. The respondent No.2 sold the two acres of land out of the total four acres of the land in question vide registered document No.5110 registered on 01.11.2018 and was mutated in revenue record for such sale on 02.11.2018.
3.8. It is the case of the petitioners that the Mamlatdar thereafter mutated the Entry No.2779 completely in defiance of the allotment order dated 31.05.1971 in the year 2018 against the provision of law. It is the case of the petitioners that the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat vide letter dated 19.12.2022 issued administrative orders to the Collectorate, Rajkot for initiating Page 6 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined appropriate departmental inquiry against the Mamlatdar namely Mr. K.H. Khanpara. 3.9. It is the case of the petitioners that the Collectorate Office, Rajkot observed that prima-facie there may have been some connivance of the Mamlatdar with the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore the Collector, in exercise of powers under Article 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, in suo motu review, quashed and set aside the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by Mamlatdar, Rajkot. 3.10. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, challenged the same before the SSRD, whereby the SSRD vide order dated 08.09.2021 quashed and set aside the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Collector.
Page 7 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined 4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the petitioners submitted that the Collector, Rajkot has cancelled the order dated 05.10.2018 converting the land in question from new tenure land to old tenure land only on the basis of the Revenue Entry No.2779 mutated in the Revenue Records on the basis of the Circular dated 19.02.2018, letter dated 15.05.2018 and Panchrojkam dated 30th May, 2018 to mutate the names of the legal heirs of the late Mombhai Patabhai Bharvad to whom the land in question was allotted vide order dated 31.05.1971 passed by the Deputy Collector. It was submitted that the respondent No.2 was handed over the possession of the land on 30th May, 2018 and therefore, the Mamlatdar has committed an error by passing an order on 05.10.2018 to convert the Page 8 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined land in question from new tenure land to old tenure land contrary to the Government Resolution that the land can be converted into old tenure land only on the basis if the person is having the possession of land for fifteen years.
4.2. It was submitted that admittedly, the possession of the land in question was handed over to the respondent No.2 in the month of May, 2018 and therefore, the Collector has rightly cancelled the order dated 05.10.2018 converting the land in question from new tenure land to old tenure land. It was submitted that the SSRD has committed an error in relying upon the Panchrojkam dated 10.06.1971 and Entry No.156 in the Revenue Record to believe the possession of the respondents on the land in question since Page 9 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined 1971. It was therefore submitted that even Panchrojkam dated 10.06.1971 does not disclose the thumb impression of late Mombhai Patabhai Bharvad and therefore, it cannot be said that the possession was handed over to the ancestors of the respondents in the year 1971 and admittedly, as per the Revenue Records, the respondents have been given the possession of the land in question in the year 2018. 4.3. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the SSRD is required to be quashed and set aside and the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Collector in Revision Case No.12 of 2019 is required to be restored cancelling the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar to convert the land in question from new tenure land to old tenure land.
Page 10 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined
5. Having heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Krutik Parikh for the petitioners, it appears that the respondent No.2 preferred an application on 15.05.2018 relying upon the Government Circular dated 19th February, 2018 stating that though the respondents are having the physical possession of the land in question, the names are not mutated in the Revenue Records and not reflected even in the Village Form No.7 and
12. It was therefore prayed that the benefit of the Circular dated 19.02.2018 of the Government be given to the respondents and accordingly, by letter dated 17.05.2018, the Mamlatdar directed the Circle Officer and Talati of Village:Lothda to hand over the possession of the land in question after drawing a Panchnama and accordingly, a Panchnama was drawn on 30th May, 2018 to hand Page 11 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined over the possession of the land in question as to record the names of the respondent No.2 as legal heirs of late Mombhai Patabhai Bharvad in the Revenue Record and Entry No.2779 to that effect was mutated in the Revenue Records and was certified on 06.07.2018 by the competent authority. Thus, it is apparent that by such procedures, the names of the respondents were mutated in the Revenue Records and the fact remains that though the respondents were having the possession of the land and were cultivating the land in question, their names were not mutated in the Revenue Records and by the aforesaid procedure, their names were mutated in the Revenue Records and accordingly, the respondents applied for conversion of the land from new tenure land to old tenure land on the basis of having the possession since 1971. Page 12 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6370/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023 undefined Merely because the Revenue Entry No.2779 is mutated in the Revenue Records in the year 2018 on the basis of the Panchnama drawn on 30th May, 2018 so as to regularise the possession of the respondents on record, it cannot be said that the respondents were not having the possession of the land in question since 1971 which is recorded by the SSRD in the impugned order as a finding of fact. Therefore, no interference is required to be made in the impugned order passed by the SSRD whereby, the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Collector is quashed. The petition therefore, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. No orders as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 13 of 13 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 18:37:13 IST 2023