Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.10 The Collector observed that the Deputy Collector, did not examine as to whether the mutation of the entry was on the basis of the heirship or on the basis of registered document and that the entry number 12838 dated 26.4.2007 was an entry of heirship and that the release deed was not for heirship. The release deed having not been implemented for more than 34 years, there are no reasons available to disturb the order of Mamlatdar, Valod, certifying the entry number 12838 dated 26.4.2007.

2.11 The order was challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) who, while rejecting the revision application of the petitioners, confirmed the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Collector, Tapi, Vyara. The Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), concluded that though the release deed was executed beyond the period of 12 years, neither the factum of execution of the release deed nor of the decree has been mutated in the revenue record and thus, as per the Limitation Act, after a period of 34 years the order cannot be implemented. The petitioners have not got the release deed mutated in the revenue record and it is only when the heirship of Laxmiben has been posted that the petitioners have raised the issue and have tried to get the entry mutated in the revenue record. The Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has also observed that the Deputy Collector has not examined the issue of Limitation Act. It has also been observed that determination of the share will be within the purview of the Civil Court and that neither the Revenue Court nor the officers have any powers to determine such issue. It has also been observed that only on the basis of the release deed, the recording of the heirship cannot be denied.

3.2 It is further submitted that even the Mamlatdar in the first instance, has accepted the factum that the land revenue has been paid by the petitioners. Having observed thus, the Mamlatdar could not have certified the entry number 12838 dated 26.4.2007 recording the heirship of the respondents no.5 to 10 in the revenue record. It is further submitted that all the authorities viz. the Mamlatdar, Valod in his order dated 7.2.2008, the Collector, Tapi in his order dated 16.7.2009 and the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in his order dated 25.5.2011 committed an error in considering the delay of 34 years on the part of the petitioners. In fact, the aforesaid authorities ought to have considered the delay of 25 years on the part of the respondents no.5 to 10 in approaching the Mamlatdar. It is further submitted that the mutation of heirship after the period of 25 years in the revenue record, is nothing but a mala fide attempt on the part of the respondents no.5 to 10 only with a view to grabbing the land in question of which, the ancestors of the respondents had ceased to be the owner. It is further submitted that the respondents have submitted an application to the Mamlatdar; however, no reasons worth the name have been cited for approaching the Mamlatdar for mutation of the heirship of Bai Parvati after a period of 25 years inasmuch as, Bai Parvati, that is, mother of Laxmiben passed away way back on 5.12.1982. While drawing the attention of the court to the order dated 7.2.2008 passed by the Mamlatdar, Valod, it has been submitted that no satisfactory reasons are recorded by the Mamlatdar with respect to the delay of reporting the right of acquisition beyond a period of three months from the date of the death of Bai Parvati on 5.12.1982.

14. In the present case, the Mamlatdar has observed that the petitioners have objected to the entry number 12838 dated 26.4.2007 recording the heirship of the respondents no.5 to 10 on the basis of the consent decree and the release deed dated 27.5.1974. That the name of Bai Parvati in the revenue record has been continued since the year 1948 as the occupant of the land and the petitioners neither have taken any objection against the continuation of the name of Bai Parvati in the revenue record nor have taken any steps for mutating their names in the revenue record despite they being aware of the name of Bai Parvati in the revenue record. The Mamlatdar has recorded that the factum of knowledge to the petitioners is strengthened by the fact that the land revenue receipts carry the endorsement to the effect that the land revenue has been paid by the petitioners. The Mamlatdar concluded that the petitioners did not take any objection against the continuation of the name of Bai Parvati in the revenue record and no steps were ever taken by the petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue record and that the plea of the petitioners to mutate their names in the revenue record only on the basis of the consent decree as well as the release deed, cannot be accepted. The Mamlatdar further held that the entry of heirship is to be recorded on the basis of Village Form number 7/12 and accordingly, the Mamlatdar certified the entry number 12838 dated 26.4.2007 vide his order dated 7.2.2008.

17. The Collector and the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), while setting aside the order dated 7.7.2008 of the Deputy Collector held that the petitioners even after 34 years of the execution of the release deed, have not taken any steps and that the release deed is only a document and the document should have been the document for sale. The release deed not being a document of sale, the ownership cannot be determined. Further, the State Government has suffered a loss of stamp duty as well as the registration fee. The Collector, raised a doubt with respect to the execution of the release deed dated 27.5.1974. The Collector further observed that the order dated 7.7.2008 is not in consonance with the rules of record of rights and the names cannot be mutated only on the basis of possession. The Collector observed that before mutation of names in the revenue record, it was necessary to determine as to whether the right has been acquired through heirship or on the basis of the registered document and that the Deputy Collector has not considered such aspects. It is further observed that the entry number 12838 dated 26.4.2007 is on the basis of heirship whereas, the release deed dated 27.5.1974 is not providing for heirship. The release deed has not been implemented for more than 34 years and thus, the proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar under the provisions of section 135 of the Code, cannot be faulted and the entry number 12838 dated 26.4.2007 certified vide order dated 7.2.2008 does not warrant interference. The Collector, while setting aside the order dated 7.7.2008 of the Deputy Collector, confirmed the order dated 7.2.2008 passed by the Mamlatdar.