Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Upon perusal of the record of the lower court as well as the evidences lead by the applicant and the respondents, HC-NIC Page 2 of 12 Created On Mon Aug 21 00:38:48 IST 2017 it appears that Block Nos.79, 230, 53, 407 and 232 of mouje Salal, Taluka Prantij, were running in the name of the father of the applicant, namely Karshanbhai Parshottambhai Patel and upon allotment of ½ share in favour of the applicant, the names of the applicant and her father were jointly continued, in which ½ land the applicant was the occupant, and after the introduction of the consolidation scheme, for Block No.202 joint names of both had continued in the said block. Thereafter upon the death of Karshanbhai Purshottambhai, through succession, names of the applicant and the respondent were entered vide mutation entry No.3116 dt. 21.10.92. Considering this, the applicant was already holding ½ share, and by succession, in remaining ½ share, became occupants of three parts. That by mutation entry No.3981 dt.20.07.2002, the name of the applicant has been deleted. For which, it is stated that the name has been wrongly deleted as applicants was not living in India. For which, criminal complaint has also been filed. At present Block Nos.230 and 407 are running in the name of Respondent No.2, whereas Block Nos. 79, 53 have been entered in the name of son of the respondent No.2 vide mutation entry No.4419. Also in Block No.232, the respondent No.2 has relinquished his share vide mutation entry No. 4248 and is entered in the name of the applicant, and upon selling this land, the name of Raval Pannaben Sumanchandra has been entered. Therefore, now dispute is in respect of Block Nos.79, 53, 407 and 230.

"Upon considering the aforesaid facts as well as the submissions made by the appellant and the respondent No.2, record of the case and the documentary evidences so produced regarding the lands bearing Block Nos.53, 79, 232, 407, 230 of mouje Salal, Taluka Prantij, the same were running in the name of Patel Revaben Karshanbhai Patel, Jayantibhai Karshanbhai but since Revaben was got married her right was relinquished in favour of her brother Jayantibhai Karshanbhai vide mutation entry No.3981, dated 20.07.2002, which was certified on 21.09.2002 by the Deputy Mamlatdar, Revenue, Prantij. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 had preferred appeal in the court of Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar, on 27.12.2010. Which on transfer, the Deputy Collector, Prantij, by his order No.RTS/Appeal/ Case No.218/46/2011 dated 13.04.2012 allowed the appeal, thereby canceling the mutation entry No.3981. Against which, this office, by order dt. 14.08.2012, had granted temporary injunction till final hearing of the revision. It was contended that the Police Inspector, Prantij, has requested to delete Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant by relying upon the opinion of the F.S.L. and handwriting expert regarding matching of the left hand thumb impression of Revaben in the statement recorded on "Upon perusal of the record of the lower court as well as the evidences lead by the applicant and the respondents, it appears that Block Nos.79, 230, 53, 407 and 232 of mouje Salal, Taluka Prantij, were running in the name of the father of the applicant, namely Karshanbhai Parshottambhai Patel and upon allotment of ½ share in favour of the applicant, the names of the applicant and her father were jointly continued, in which ½ land the applicant was the occupant, and after the introduction of the consolidation scheme, for Block No.202 joint names of both had continued in the said block. Thereafter upon HC-NIC Page 4 of 12 Created On Mon Aug 21 00:38:48 IST 2017 the death of Karshanbhai Purshottambhai, through succession, names of the applicant and the respondent were entered vide mutation entry No.3116 dt. 21.10.92. Considering this, the applicant was already holding ½ share, and by succession, in remaining ½ share, became occupants of three parts. That by mutation entry No.3981 dt.20.07.2002, the name of the applicant has been deleted. For which, it is stated that the name has been wrongly deleted as applicants was not living in India. For which, criminal complaint has also been filed. At present Block Nos.230 and 407 are running in the name of Respondent No.2, whereas Block Nos. 79, 53 have been entered in the name of son of the respondent No.2 vide mutation entry No.4419. Also in Block No.232, the respondent No.2 has relinquished his share vide mutation entry No. 4248 and is entered in the name of the applicant, and upon selling this land, the name of Raval Pannaben Sumanchandra has been entered. Therefore, now dispute is in respect of Block Nos.79, 53, 407 and 230.

ORDER The Revision Application filed by the applicant is allowed. The disputed entry No.3981 in respect of Block Nos.79, 53, 407 and 230 of mouje Salal, Taluka Prantij, is hereby cancelled."

The Collector, while rejecting the revision application filed by the applicant herein, observed as under :

HC-NIC Page 5 of 12 Created On Mon Aug 21 00:38:48 IST 2017 "Upon considering the aforesaid facts as well as the submissions made by the appellant and the respondent No.2, record of the case and the documentary evidences so produced regarding the lands bearing Block Nos.53, 79, 232, 407, 230 of mouje Salal, Taluka Prantij, the same were running in the name of Patel Revaben Karshanbhai Patel, Jayantibhai Karshanbhai but since Revaben was got married her right was relinquished in favour of her brother Jayantibhai Karshanbhai vide mutation entry No.3981, dated 20.07.2002, which was certified on 21.09.2002 by the Deputy Mamlatdar, Revenue, Prantij. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 had preferred appeal in the court of Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar, on 27.12.2010. Which on transfer, the Deputy Collector, Prantij, by his order No.RTS/Appeal/ Case No.218/46/2011 dated 13.04.2012 allowed the appeal, thereby canceling the mutation entry No.3981. Against which, this office, by order dt. 14.08.2012, had granted temporary injunction till final hearing of the revision. It was contended that the Police Inspector, Prantij, has requested to delete Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant by relying upon the opinion of the F.S.L. and handwriting expert regarding matching of the left hand thumb impression of Revaben in the statement recorded on 20.07.2002 before the Talati during relinquishment of her right in mutation entry No.3981 and Section 135D notice. Therefore, the appellant has mainly contended that on 20.07.2002 Revaben was in India and she had willingly executed document to relinquished her share in the agricultural land in favour of her brother and no offence is committed in respect of mutation entry No.3981. The order of the lower authority dt.13.04.2012 is not sustainable and therefore it was prayed for setting aside the same. On other hand, the respondent No.1 has argued that the Central Government approved handwriting expert has opined that the thumb impressions of both the hands of Revaben in the statement recorded in ME No.3981 and mutation entry No.135-D does not match and on 20.07.2002 she was not in India but was in America and that forged bogus thumb impression was done and signatures on Panchnama are also bogus and she has placed reliance on her passport.

"In the written argument on behalf of the opponent no.1, it has been submitted that the applicant of the revision application, first of all, will have to prove the fact that he is our adopted brother. Because, on behalf of the applicant, till today, no evidence has been adduced in any court with respect to his adoption. Therefore, the said revision application is required to be rejected. The Collector, Sabarkantha, and the Deputy Collector, Prantij, by their respective order have rejected the order passed by the Deputy Mamlatdar certifying the disputed mutation entry no.3981, as the same was illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary. In connection with the disputed mutation entry no.3981 the applicant had personally remained present before the Talati-cum- Mantri and submitted that he has never initiated any proceeding relinquishing half of his share in the disputed lands in favour of the applicant and has never admitted before the Talati-cum-Mantri. At the relevant point we were not present in India. We were staying with our son residing in the United States. To show this, on behalf of the applicant, a copy of the passport is also produced. The applicant has not received any legal notice or notice under Section 135(D) with respect to the said mutation entry no.3981. The applicant was not even present in India when the disputed entry was mutated and certified. The reply of the panchas taken by the Talati-cum-Manti of Salal with respect to the disputed entry is not believable. Because, the signature of one of the panchas who signed on the reply, viz. Ranchhodbhai V.Patel, is not at all residing in Salal. If at all some Ranchhodbhai P.Patel had signed in the year 2002, he had already died in the year 1995. Till this date, no explanation worth the name is taken by the police or by the hon'ble court or the person has not remained present and for this reason also the disputed entry is required to be rejected.