Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs Of Maniben Chhatrasinh ... vs Kantilal Revadas Patel & 4 on 25 September, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/17085/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17085 of 2017
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17086 of 2017
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF MANIBEN CHHATRASINH SOLANKI & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
KANTILAL REVADAS PATEL & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JF MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 1.2 , 2
MS. THAKORE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 25/09/2017
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned petitions are the same and the parties are also the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.17085 of 2017 is treated as the lead matter.
3. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by the S.S.R.D at Ahmedabad whereby the S.S.R.D rejected the revision application filed by the applicants herein, thereby affirming the order of the Collector, Bharuch dated 31st January, 2017.
4. The S.S.R.D., while rejecting the revision application filed Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:37:54 IST 2017 C/SCA/17085/2017 ORDER by the applicants herein, held as under;
"Revision Application of the Applicant, Written/Oral arguments of Advocates of parties, Submissions, evidences based on record produced in the impugned order passed by the Collector were considered.
Land in question located at Mouje-Tavra, Taluka-Bharuch, Block No.39, Hector-0-57-00 Sq. Mtr was sold in the presence of the original land owner Shri Maniben Chhatrasinh to Revadas Rayjibhai Patel through registered sale deed no.1531 dated 11-04-1997. Mutation entry thereof was entered after 20 years in the revenue records vide entry no.875 on 04-10-2011. Aforesaid mutation entry was confirmed by the Revenue Mamlatdar of Bharuch. Seller of the land in question is not alive. As the seller died after the execution of registered sale deed, heirs of the deceased were entered in the revenue record and names of occupants were changed which is inconsistent. Land in question is in the form of fragment. Heir-ship of the deceased was canceled due to entry made executing deed without consideration. Aggrived by the said order heirs of purchaser Shri Revadas Raijibhai, applicants of the case, filed appeal in the Court of Deputy Collector of Bharuch, heir-ship of the deceased was canceled due to entry made executing deed without consideration. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, heirs of purchaser Shri Revadas Raijibhai, applicants of the case, filed appeal in the Court of Deputy Collector of Bharuch, which was rejected by the Deputy Collector by the order No. HKP/Appeal No.46/12 dated 25-07-2012. Aggrieved by the said order, applicant of this case filed appeal No. HKP/Appeal No.6/2013. Sale deed of land in question was executed before 14 years. On the basis of that sale deed names of purchasers were not entered in the records. Meanwhile, original occupant died and presently, names of his heirs are appearing in the records. In these circumstances, relief was required to be sought from the Hon'ble Civil Court to decide its title, where order of the Deputy Collector was confirmed and appeal was rejected. The applicant filed an appeal before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal), Ahmedabad, wherein, revision application was partly allowed by Order No. MaViVi / HaKaPa/BhaCha/88/2013 dated 4/5/2015 and the said Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:37:54 IST 2017 C/SCA/17085/2017 ORDER case was remanded to the court of the Collector, Bharuch for verification of legality of impugned sale deed and as to whether the applicant is agriculture land holder or not. The collector, Bharuch by considering and reviewing provisions of records of rights of impugned mutation entries, has certified Mutation Entry No.8758 dated 04/10/2011. Thus, the collector, Bharuch has passed an order by considering and studying the provisions relating to records of rights and land revenue rules and after verification of revenue records and by citing reasons, which appears just and fair considering the provisions of revenue laws / rules / circulars. Therefore, it is not advisable to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Collector, Bharuch.
Hence, following order is passed in present case.
ORDER:-
The revision application of the applicant is rejected on merits and the impugned order No. HaKaPa/Remand/Appeal/Case No.382/15/Vashi.796-802 dated 31/01/2017 is confirmed."
5. It appears that the dispute between the parties pertains to a parcel of an agricultural land bearing Block No.39, situated at village Tavra, Taluka: Bharuch. One Maniben Chatrasinh, during her lifetime, executed a registered sale deed No.1531 dated 11th April, 1997 in favour of one Revadas Rayjibhai Patel. The private respondents herein are the legal heirs of late Revadas Rayjibhai Patel. The sale deed of 1997 led to mutation of an entry No.8758 on 4th October, 2011. The connected matter is with regard to the second sale deed dated 12th May, 1992, which led to mutation of the Revenue Entry No.8757 dated 4th October, 2011. The applicants herein claim to have directly interested in the subject land because it is their case that the land, being an ancestral, Maniben Chatrasinh, on her own, could not have transferred the land by Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:37:54 IST 2017 C/SCA/17085/2017 ORDER a registered sale deed. Thus, 8757 and 8758 are the two entries which are in dispute. The materials on record indicate that the applicants herein have filed the two civil suits, i.e, (i) Regular Civil Suit No.249 of 2014 in the court of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bharuch for injunction and (ii) Regular Civil Suit No.250 of 2014 for injunction. Both the civil suits are with regard to the two disputed sale deeds, said to have been executed by late Maniben.
6. The dispute, as on date, is with regard to the mutation of entries in the record of rights. It is a settled law that the mutation of entries in the revenue records is only for the fiscal purpose. It would not confer any right, title or interest, even otherwise, there is none. As the applicants are before the Civil Court by filing two civil suits, the rights of the parties will be determined by the civil court in accordance with law. Both the disputed entries, i.e., 8757 and 8758 shall be subject to the final outcome of the two suits filed by the applicants herein, referred to above. I am informed that in one of the suits, the civil court has also passed an order of injunction in the form of status quo below Exh.5. Without disturbing the order passed by the S.S.R.D., the revenue authorities are directed to make a reference of the two civil suits in the revenue records at the earliest. If there is any order of injunction granted by the civil court, the same shall be produced by the applicants and a reference of that injunction shall also be made in the revenue records. The two civil suits shall now proceed further expeditiously in accordance with law on their own merits.
7. With the above, both these applications are disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
Page 4 of 5HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:37:54 IST 2017 C/SCA/17085/2017 ORDER (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Vahid Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:37:54 IST 2017