NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 775 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 776 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 775 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ================================================================ HEIRS OF DECEASED KESAVLAL BHAILALBHAI SHAH & 1 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 11 other(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2 AAYOG Y DOSHI(8519) for the Respondent(s) No. 11,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4,8.1,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.5 MR ADITYA JADEJA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Respondent(s) No. 12 MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No. 11,6,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4,8.1,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.5 MR TRILOK J PATEL(658) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,9 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Page 1 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined Date : 07/10/2023 CAV JUDGMENT Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S. Patel with learned advocate Mr.Umang Oza for learned advocate Mr.Chirag B. Patel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.775 of 2014, learned advocate Mr.Jigar P. Raval appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.776 of 2014, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Jadeja, learned Senior Advocate Mr.R. R. Marshal with learned advocate Mr.Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate Mr.Meet Kakadiya for learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar for the respective respondents.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Jadeja, learned advocate Mr.Mrugen Purohit and learned advocate Mr.Meet Kakadiya waive service of Page 2 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Both these petitions are arising out of the dispute relating to the land bearing Survey No.22, Block No.25 of Village: Sevasi, Taluka and District: Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land'). Special Civil Application No.775 of 2014 is filed to challenge the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (for short 'SSRD') in Revision Application No.168 of 2012 whereas, Special Civil Application No.776 of 2014 is filed to challenge the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the SSRD in Revision Application No.35 of 2009.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under : Page 3 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined 3.1. The said land originally belonged to late Mangalbhai Muljibhai Patel, Ramanbhai Muljibhai Patel and Govindbhai Mangalbhai Patel. The original owners sold the said land to the predecessor in title of the petitioners i.e. Kesavlal Shah by way of a registered sale-deed dated 20.06.1968 and Entry No.1474 was mutated in the revenue record regarding the same. Meanwhile, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners i.e. Kesavlal Shah expired on 21.11.1972.
3.2. The petitioners thereafter filed an application before the Sevasi Gram Panchayat and inquired regarding the objection raised by one of the original owners. The Sevasi Gram Panchayat by communication dated 24.07.2002 informed the petitioners that nothing is traceable regarding the Entry No.1474. One of the original owners raised an objection Page 4 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined against the said entry on the ground that one Civil Suit is pending regarding the said land and the Revenue temporarily cancelled the said entry on 27.08.1973 on the ground that some dispute is pending in the Civil Court. 3.3. It is the case of the petitioners that heirs of Kesavlal Shah preferred an Appeal before the Deputy Collector bearing Appeal No.43 of 1973 against the order passed by the Revenue officer regarding the cancellation of Entry No.1474 which was dismissed for default on 13.01.1976. It is also the case of the petitioners that the heirs of Kheshavlal Shah again applied for mutation of their names on the basis of sale-deed of the year 1968 in the year 2006 and at that time, because of the dispute, the Mamlatdar initiated the Dispute Case No.24 of 2006 and by Judgment and Order Page 5 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined dated 07.03.2008 directed the Revenue Authority to mutate Entry No.4166 in revenue record of the said land regarding the registered sale-deed dated 20.06.1968. 3.4. Against the order of the Mamlatdar, the respondent Nos.6 and 12 filed Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara bearing Appeal Nos. RTS/Appeal Nos.29 of 2008 and 30 of 2008. The Deputy Collector, Vadodara by Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2010, allowed both the Appeals by a common order. Against the Judgement and Order of the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, the heirs of Kesavlal Shah preferred the Revision Application No.RTS/RA/96/2011 before the Collector, Vadodara which was rejected by order dated 17.08.2012. 3.5. Against the order of the Collector, the petitioners preferred the Revision Application Page 6 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined No.MVV/HKP/VVD/168/2012 before the respondent No.5-SSRD and the respondent No.5 rejected the said Revision Application by judgment and order dated 26.11.2013.
3.6. It is the case of the petitioners that the original owners of the said land, sold the said land by way of a registered sale-deed dated 20.06.1968 to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners i.e. Kesavlal Shah but as stated above, because of the dispute in the entry proceedings, the names of the heirs of the original owners remained in the revenue record as occupiers of the said land and by taking advantage of the such a situation in the year of 1976, the heirs of the original owner shown the said land in their possession before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority.
Page 7 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined 3.7. The competent authority by order dated 07.02.1990 declared that 11099 sq. Mtrs of the said land is retainable land and further held that land ad-measuring 4178 sq.mtrs was excess land so far as the said land is concerned. 3.8. The heirs of the original owner filed an application before the Collector, Vadodara for Non-Agriculture Use Permission qua the retainable land i.e. land admeasuring 11090 sq. Mtrs and the Collector, Vadodara by order dated 05.03.1994, granted NA permission. 3.9. It is the case of the petitioners that after the order of the Collector regarding the NA use, the heirs of the original owners fraudulently sold the land admeasuring 11090 sq. mtrs. to third parties by way of the sale- deed dated 10.06.1994 and Entry Nos.3114 to 3121 were mutated in the revenue record Page 8 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined regarding the alleged sale-deed dated 10.06.1994.
3.10. It is the case of the petitioners that some unknown persons fraudulently filed the Special Civil Suit No.749 of 1996 in the Civil Court, Vadodara in the name of heirs of deceased-Kesavlal Shah against the original owners and the subsequent purchasers of the said land. It is further the case of the petitioners that the said bogus Civil Suit was ultimately withdrawn unconditionally by some third parties and as soon as the petitioners came to know regarding the above fact of Special Civil Suit No.749 of 1996, they filed an application being Application No.198 of 2008 before the Civil Court, Vadodara regarding the same.
3.11. The petitioners i.e. the heirs of Page 9 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined deceased-Kesavlal Shah filed a Special Civil Suit No.715 of 2002 for declaration and injunction against the original owner and the subsequent purchaser of the said land and the Trial Court initially granted the status-quo order vide order dated 22.07.2002 but thereafter, by order dated 11.11.2006, rejected the interim relief application against which Misc. Civil Appeal No.285 of 2006 is pending before the District Court, Vadodara and the order of the status-quo is already granted by the District Court, Vadodara. The petitioners thereafter filed a Special Civil Suit No. 1183 of 2009 for cancellation of the bogus and fraudulent sale- deeds executed by the heirs of the original owners and the same is pending before the Civil Court, Vadodara.
3.12. So far as the land admeasuring 4178 Page 10 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined sq.mtrs of the said land which was declared excess vacant land under the ULC proceedings is concerned, Entry No.3546 is mutated in the revenue record and on the basis of the said entry, the heirs of the original owner fraudulently sold the said land to third parties by a registered sale-deed dated 22.12.1999.
3.13. It is the case of the petitioners that it has been brought to the notice of the petitioners that father of respondent No.18- Milindkumar Sukumar was holding the power of attorney on behalf of interested persons and had committed a serious fraud as the original owner of the land originally executed the sale-deed in favour of Chimanbhai Mangalbhai Patel who expired in U.K. on 23.7.2003 and even though Chimanbhai Mangalbhai Patel had expired, respondent No.18-Milindkumar Sukumar Page 11 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined Patel, his father and one another person played mischief and got the power of attorney as well as entered the name as if it has been executed by Chimanbhai Mangalbhai Patel in July, 2010 and Chimanbhai Mangalbhai Patel, father of respondent No. 18, executed sale- deed in favour of respondent No.18 on 14.12.2016. In that event, existence of the respondent No.18 and his father who have got the sale-deed executed in their name is based on fraud which has been brought to the notice of the petitioners after filing the petition. The petitioners immediately registered a complaint before the Police Inspector, Taluka Police Station, Vadodara, on 29.03.2019 and subsequently, because of the intervention of the relatives of respondent No.18, the complaint had been withdrawn by the petitioners by giving the statement. It is the Page 12 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined case of the petitioners that after compromise also, the middleman did not act as per the settlement and the petitioners have revived the complaint by submitting an application. 3.14. It is the case of the petitioners that in any event, the persons whose names are running on the record is the result of the fraud and being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by orders dated 14.07.2010, 17.08.2012 and 26.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, Collector, Vadodara and Special Secretary Revenue Department, Ahmedabad respectively, the petitioners have preferred these petitions.
4.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel for the petitioners submitted that it is an admitted position that the original owners of the said land sold it to the predecessor in Page 13 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined title of the petitioners by registered sale- deed dated 20th February, 1968 and till date, none of the original owners nor the heirs of the original owners have challenged the said sale-deed before Civil Court and therefore, the original owners cannot claim any ownership right qua the said land as they have no right, title or interest.
4.2. It was therefore submitted that merely because the revenue entry mutated in revenue record regarding the sale-deed was cancelled temporarily on the ground of pendency of some Civil Suit, it cannot be said that the registered sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968 was cancelled.
4.3. It was submitted that by virtue of the entry in revenue proceedings, the registered sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968 was not Page 14 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined cancelled on ground of breach of any statutory provision or on the ground that the said sale- deed was void and therefore, the original owners have no right over the said land after pocketing the money. It was submitted that if the original owners have any grievance, they ought to have filed Civil Suit challenging the sale-deed. It was therefore submitted that the original registered sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968 is still in operation in asmuch as the entry in revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose for collection of revenue and cannot be considered as a proof of title. 4.4. It was pointed out by learned Senior Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel that due to some technical reason, the names of the original owners and thereafter the names of their heirs continued in the revenue record due to which it was projected as owners and occupiers of Page 15 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined the said land before the ULC authorities, before the Revenue Authorities and before the third parties by subsequently converting the land into non-agricultural land and thereafter, fraudulently selling the said land to the third parties.
4.5. It was therefore submitted that the original owners and their heirs are absolutely dis-honest persons and fraudulently and dis- honestly sold the said land to the third parties with full knowledge that they were not the owners and occupiers of the said land. It was therefore submitted that the Revenue Authorities are not authorised to decide the title of the land in question and it is for the Civil Court to decide the issue of title in absence of any challenge to the sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968. The Revenue Authority is duty bound to mutate the entry in the Page 16 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined revenue record regarding the registered sale- deed and therefore, the orders of the Deputy Collector and the SSRD are liable to be quashed and set aside.
4.6. It was submitted that the Entry No.1474 was objected by one of the original owners before the Mamlatdar but the said objection was raised without producing copy of the Suit or any document in respect of the pendency of the Civil Suit at the relevant point of time and therefore, the Mamlatdar ought to have rejected the objection but instead thereof, the Entry No.1474 was not certified and the names of the original owners continued in the revenue record.
4.7. It was therefore submitted that the petitioners are the heirs of the legal owners of the land purchased in the year 1968. Page 17 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined 4.8. It was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Patel that the Revenue Authorities ought to have certified the revenue Entry No.4166 after verification of the revenue records. It was further submitted that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are always subject to outcome of the pending proceedings before the Civil Court as the petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit No.715 of 2002 which is still pending. 5.1. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr.R.R.Marshal for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have challenged the entry after lapse of more than 32 years and after the subsequent entries have been mutated in the revenue records and therefore, impugned orders are just and proper and no interference is required by this Court in Page 18 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined absence of any explanation for delay caused in challenging the revenue entries before the authority. It was submitted that the petitioners should have approached the revenue authorities within a reasonable time. 5.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Marshal for the respondents submitted that the Entry No.1474 was not certified by the Mamlatdar and the Appeal No.43 of 1973 against rejection of the said entry was also dismissed by the Deputy Collector by order dated 13.01.1976 which was challenged by the petitioners by filing Revision Application No.123 of 2008 before the Collector after a period of 32 years and against which, Revision Application No.35 of 2009 is also dismissed by the SSRD which is subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.776 of 2014. It was submitted that in the year 2006, the Page 19 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined mutation Entry No.4166 dated 25.04.2006 was illegally mutated in spite of the fact that the mutation entry No.1474 was not certified, again the Entry No.4166 could not have been mutated.
5.3. It was submitted that though earlier Entry No.1474 of the year 1972 was cancelled from revenue record, heirs of deceased Kesavlal Shah and others did not take any step for 32 years and instead in the year 2006, again moved the Mamlatdar to mutate the name of deceased-Kesavlal Shah and Chandrakant Shah on the basis of the registered sale-deed of the year 1968. The Mamlatdar, without making any inquiry certified the mutation Entry No.4166 dated 25.04.2006 vide order dated 17.03.2008 ignoring the subsequent transaction in the years 1994 and 1999 entered into by the heirs of the original owners with respondent Page 20 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined No.12 and others who are bona-fide purchasers of the land in question. It was submitted that the Entry No.4166 made in the name of the deceased person was therefore illegal and invalid. The Mamlatdar also did not consider the fact regarding conversion of the said land to non-agricultural land and grant of construction permission before mutating the Entry No.4166.
5.4. It was therefore submitted that the Deputy Collector has rightly allowed the RTA Appeal Nos.29 and 30 of 2008 by order dated 14.07.2010 by setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar dated 07.03.2008 cancelling the Entry No.4166 with further direction that the entry will be mutated in revenue records subject to the final outcome of the Civil Suits.
Page 21 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined 5.5. It was therefore submitted that the Collector vide order dated 17.08.2012 and the SSRD in the impugned order dated 26.11.2013 in the Revision Application No.168 of 2012 have rightly upheld the order of the Deputy Collector by dismissing the Revision Applications by observing that once the earlier Entry No.1474 was cancelled from the revenue records, again thereafter new entry cannot be made in the record for the same transaction.
5.6. It was submitted that the said transaction of the year 1968 was never acted upon and the said land continued in the possession of the original owner-Maganbhai Muljibhai Patel and after his death, names of his heirs were mutated in revenue record vide Entry No.1569 dated 25.08.1975 and thereafter, under the ULC Act, the land admeasuring 4178 Page 22 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined sq.mtrs was declared as excess land. It was submitted that the petitioners have not taken up any steps during the period from 1972 till 2006 when the application was made to again mutate the name of the deceased person on the basis of the registered sale-deed before the Mamlatdar and preferred the Appeal challenging the Entry No.1474 after 32 years in the year 2008. It was therefore submitted that the Revenue Authorities have rightly passed the impugned orders subject to final outcome of the pending proceedings in the Civil Court.
6. Learned advocates for the other respondents have also adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate Mr.Marshal.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that Page 23 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined after execution of the registered sale-deed in the year 1968, the Entry No.1474 was not certified in the Revenue Record. The Appeal filed before the Deputy Collector was also dismissed in the year 1973. The petitioners did not take any action for mutation of the name of the late Kesavlal Shah or his legal heirs in the revenue record till 2006. The Appeal was also filed challenging the order of the Deputy Collector passed in the year 1973 by the legal heirs of the late Kesavlal Shah before the Collector in the year 2008 i.e. almost after 32 years. Moreover, it is a matter of fact that at no point of time various mutation entries effected in revenue records pursuant to the registered sale-deed of the years 1994 and 1999 were challenged by petitioners or any legal heirs of the deceased Kesavlal Shah at any point of time. It is also Page 24 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined a matter of fact that the sole transaction dated 20th June, 1968 has not been mutated in revenue record and proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioners being heirs of the deceased Kesavlal Shah came to be rejected by the competent authority.
8. It is pertinent to note that out of the said land, under the ULC Act land admeasuring 4178 sq.mtrs was declared as excess land in the year 1990 and thereafter, the land admeasuring 11,090 sq.mtrs was converted for NA purpose in the year 1994 and development permission has also been granted by the competent authority to the respondents and none of such orders are ever challenged by the petitioners before the competent authority. It appears from the record that the petitioners have also not challenged the sale-deed of 1994 and 1999 before the Civil Court. Page 25 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined
9. It also emerges from the record that Special Civil Suit No.749 of 1996 filed by the legal heirs of late Kesavlal Shah for declaration and injunction against the original owner Mr.Mangalbhai Patel and other eight registered sale-deed holders was also withdrawn unconditionally by the power of attorney holder. However, it is the case of the petitioners that the authority of power of attorney to withdraw the Suit unconditionally was challenged by the petitioners as he played fraud upon the Court, however for which, no substantive proceedings are initiated by the petitioners.
10. It also appears that except the present petitioners namely Harishchandra Kesavlal Shah, Suryakant Kesavlal Shah and legal heirs of Kesavlal Bhailalbhai Shah, no other legal Page 26 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined heirs have challenged the withdrawal of the said Suit through power of attorney being an act of fraud though the petitioners were aware about filing of the Suit and withdrawal thereof.
11. It is also pertinent to note that the Civil Court did not grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioners in the Regular Civil Suit No.715 of 2002 filed before the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and the Misc. Appeal No.285 of 2006 filed before the District Court as well as the Special Civil Application No.10535 of 2014 filed before this Court are also dismissed.
12. It is also pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition preferred against the dismissal of the Special Civil Application No.10535 of 2014 is also dismissed by the Page 27 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23rd January, 2017 and the said order is placed with the further affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.12 and others who are the subsequent purchasers of the land.
13. In view of the above discussion, it emerges that the challenge upheld by the Collector and SSRD as the petitioners challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector in the year 2008 in Appeal No.43 of 73 after more than 32 years. Therefore, the Special Civil Application No.776 of 2014 arising out of the Revision Application No.35 of 2009 is accordingly dismissed. So far as Special Civil Application No.775 of 2014 is concerned, the same is also dismissed as the Entry No.4166 is rightly rejected by the Deputy Collector as the Mamlatdar could not have passed that said entry in the revenue Page 28 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined records when the Entry No.1474 was already not certified in the year 1972 and the Appeal against the same was dismissed in the year 1973. The Deputy Collector, Collector and SSRD have therefore rightly rejected the Entry No.4166 mutated in the revenue record in the year 2006 to mutate the names of the deceased persons Kesavlal Shah and Chandrakant Shah on the basis of the registered sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968. The Special Civil Application No.775 of 2014 is therefore also dismissed confirming the order passed by the SSRD in Revision Application No.168 of 2012. However, it is clarified that all the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are subject to the final outcome of the pending proceedings of the Civil Court as observed by the SSRD in the impugned orders. The petitions therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed. Pending Civil Page 29 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/775/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2023 undefined Application also stands disposed of in view of the dismissal of the Special Civil Applications. Rule is discharged. No orders as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) PALAK Page 30 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:48:00 IST 2023