AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J
By way of present petition, the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated
7/8.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.6, Revenue Secretary (Appeals) in Revision application No.41/2012 (AnnexureÂA), whereby the
Respondent No.6 has dismissed the said Revision Application.
As transpiring from the record, the petitioners claim to be owners in respect of land bearing Survey No.509/2 situated at village Surashamal, Taluka
Sinor, District Vadodara. According to them, their grandfather i.e. Kesar Dula who died on 07.06.1973 owned the said land. Deceased Kesar Dula
had not executed any will or gift deed or sold the said land and after the death of Kesar Dula, the petitioners were in possession of the said land.
According to the petitioners, one Shri Dholia Becharbhai Vasrambhai tried to take possession of the land in question on the ground that he had
purchased the said land. Petitioners therefore approached the Deputy Collector, Dabhoi by filing RTS proceedings in respect of the said land disputing
the mutation entry No.3075 posted on 18.07.1982. The Deputy Collector, Dabhoi rejected the RTS proceeding of the petitioners vide order dated
07.04.2011 on the ground that the application was filed after 29 years and there was no sufficient ground to condone such delay. Against the said
order, the petitioners had filed Revision Application before the Collector, Vadodara, who vide order dated 08.12.2011 rejected the same.
The TalatiÂcumÂMantri, Surashamal thereafter, vide mutation entry no.5019 entered the name of Dholiya Becharbhai Vasrambhai as the
purchaser of the land bearing survey No.509/2. The petitioners also approached the TalatiÂCumÂMantri of village Surashamal, for entering their
names in the revenue records on the basis of pedhinama on the ground that they were the direct successors of late Shri Kesar Dula. The Talati
CumÂMantri made mutation entry No.5130 and entered the names of the petitioners on 22.06.2011. Since, the petitioners had objected against the
mutation of entry no.5019, the Mamlatdar registered the RTS case No.7/2011. Similarly, Dholia Becharbhai Vasrambhai objected against entry
no.5130 and therefore, Mamlatdar registered RTS case No.9/2011.
The Mamlatdar, Shinor thereafter rejected the succession entry No.5130 made in favour of the petitioners and approved and certified mutation
entry no.5019 in favour of Dholia Becharbhai Vasrambhai vide order dated 28.11.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had
approached this Hon’ble Court by way of Special Civil Application No.2162 of 2012. Since, the alternative remedy was available to the petitioners,
the said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter approached the Revenue Secretary
by way of filing Revision Application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
It further transpires that the petitioners had again approached the Mamlatdar, Shinor seeking information as to on what basis the mutation entry
No.376 was entered in the revenue records after mutation entry no.87. The Mamlatdar had replied that TalatiÂcum Mantri had committed an error
while entering the said mutation entry No.376. Therefore, the petitioners again approached the High Court by way of filing Special Civil Application
No.13545 of 2012 challenging the information provided by the Mamlatdar vide his letter dated 21.08.2012, though the Revision Application No.41/2012
was pending before the Revenue Secretary. The said Special Civil Application came to be disposed off by the Court with a direction to the Revenue
Secretary to decide the Revision Application.
However, in view of aftorestated chain of proceedings it clearly transpires that the petitioners had tried to misuse the process of law by filing
proceedings one after the other before the various authorities including the High Court, challenging the mutation entry entered in the year 1982.
Learned Advocate Mr.M.M.Saiyed for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were not aware about any saleÂdeed having been executed by
their predecessor, and as and when they came to know about the mutation of the disputed entry, the same has been challenged. He has relied upon
the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Kashiram Bahvdubhai Bhoy Vs. Revenue Secretary reported in 2004 (0) GLHELÂHC
206290 to submit that the respondent authorities should not have dismissed the proceedings of the petitioners only on the technical ground of delay and
latches. He has also relied upon another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muman Habib Nasir Khanji Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 1969 (0) GLHELÂHC 208024 to submit that the respondent authorities should have considered that the petitioners were in possession and
disputed entries were made without their knowledge.
However, learned Advocate Mr.Aameer R. Kadri for private respondents submits that the petitioners have already filed the suit for setting aside
the saleÂdeeds before the Civil Court in the year 2015 and the same is pending. Relying the decision of this Court in the case of Bhikhubhai Naranji
Desai Deceased by heirs. Vs. Chhotubhai Ranchhodji Desai Deceased by Heirs and Ors. reported in 2017 (4) GLR 3083, he submitted that revenue
authorities have no right decide the civil rights of parties.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and to the documents produced on record, more particularly, the
impugned order passed by the Secretary (Revenue), it appears that the land in question bearing Survey no.509/1 had changed hands from time to time
and various mutation entries were made in that regard in the year 1982. Deceased Kesar Dula, the ancestor of the petitioners having sold out the said
land in the year 1963 to one Jordas Amidas, and the said Jordar Amidas having further sold out the said land to one Jethalal by executing registered
saleÂdeed, the entry being No.1766 was mutated in his favour. Thereafter, the said Jethalal had also sold out the said land back to said Jordas
Amidas, in respect of which, entry no.2002 was mutated, and again said Jordas Amidas had sold out the land in question to one Kasamkha
Sardarkhan, in respect of which entry no.3075 was recorded on 18.07.1982. There is no explanation much less satisfactory explanation coming forth
from the petitioners as to why the entries made since 1982 were not challenged till 2010 and why the petitioners had not got their names mutated after
the death of their grandfather Kesar Dula in the year 1973.
Under the circumstances, as the multiple sale transactions of the land in question had taken place before the year 1982, and the petitioners having
challenged the disputed entries after about 30 years, the respondent authorities have rightly dismissed the proceedings filed by the petitioners. It is
needless to say that the revenue entries are made only for fiscal purpose and the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the civil rights of
the parties, as also held by this Court in the case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1370 and in the case of
Bhikhubhai Naranji Desai (Supra). It clearly transpires that the petitioners had tried to misuse the process of law by filing the proceedings before the
respondent authorities and the High Court after such a gross delay of about 30 years.
In that view of the matter, the petition being dehorse the merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged.Â