Dhirubhai Chhanbhai and Others vs Laxmanbhai Dharambhai and Others

Akil Kureshi, J.—The Petitioners have challenged an order dated 7.10.1997 passed by the Collector as upheld by order dated 13.3.2007 passed by the Principal Secretary(Appeals) Revenue Department which orders are produced at Annexure-J and M respectively to this petition. Issue pertains to revenue entries in the land bearing survey No. 268, 269 and 271 of village Nanavaghchipa Taluka Pardi.

It is the case of the Petitioners that one Jivanbhai Mervanbhai Patel was owner of Survey No. 268, 269 and 271 of the said village. Jivanbhai died leaving behind three sons named Mithlabhai Jivanbhai, Bhangiyabhai Jivanbhai and Chanabhai Jivanbhai. The Petitioners are legal heirs of Chanabhai Jivanbhai. It is the case of the Petitioners that though land holding of Jivanbhai had passed on to all his sons by way of inheritance, as per the practice name of only eldest son Mithlabhai Jivanbhai was entered in the record of lands whereas in reality through an oral partition land bearing survey No. 268 came in share of Mithlabhai Jivanbhai, survey No. 269 was allotted to Bhangiyabhai Jivanbhai and survey No. 271 was allotted to Chanabhai Jivanbhai. To set the records right, Petitioners applied for entries on revenue record. Deputy Collector granted such request by a detailed speaking order. However, Collector and Revenue Secretary reversed such an order of the Deputy Collector. Petitioners are therefore, before this Court in the present petition.

Counselfor the Petitioners vehemently contended that the opponents are not the sole owners of lands of Jivanbhai Mervanbhai Patel. Opponents No. 2 to 5 have also supported the case of the Petitioners. Entries were made in the name of eldest son thereby leading to exclusion of the name of the Petitioners. He contended that Deputy Collector had given cogent reasons in his order which ought not to have been reversed by higher authorities.

Learned AGP however, supported the order under challenge and opposed the petition.

Havingheard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the orders under challenge, I find that the Collector as well as the Revenue Secretary have given sufficient reasons to disallow the claim of the Petitioners. Entries in favour of Respondents have been mutated many years back. For years together thereafter, Petitioners raised no objection. The so-called family arrangement or partition is also stated to be oral. Without any documents, the Petitioners'' request that their names be entered in one of the survey numbers held by Jivanbhai Mervanbhai Patel.

Even if the Petitioners have any legal rights, they must establish the same through civil proceedings particularly, when entires have been continued in favour of Respondents since years. To dislodged such entry, Petitioners had to establish their ownership rights through proper proceedings instituted before the Civil Court. It is by now well settled that revenue entries are meant only for fiscal purposes and provide only prima facie evidence of possession of a party. Petitioners therefore, would not be precluded from establishing their rights through civil proceedings. If done so, present orders made in the petition as well as this order will not come in way of the Petitioners in seeking correction of entries in the revenue records.

With above observations, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, stands vacated.