Natwarlal Shivlal Thakkar vs Special Secretary Revenue ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2095 Guj

                 C/LPA/536/2017                                 ORDER




                 IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD

                   R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 536 of 2017
                                     In
                  R/SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO. 17393of 2011
                                   With
                   CIVILAPPLICATION(FORSTAY) NO. 1 of 2017
                                     In
                    R/LETTERSPATENTAPPEALNO. 536 of 2017

==============================================================================
                   NATWARLALSHIVLALTHAKKAR& 1 other(s)
                                Versus
             SPECIALSECRETARYREVENUEDEPARTMENT& 10 other(s)
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MRDIPAK R DAVE(1232)for the Appellant(s)No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,2
MRMASOOM K SHAH(6516)for the Respondent(s)No. 3,4,5,6,7,8
MS MOHINI K SHAH(775)for the Respondent(s)No. 3,4,5,6,7,8
NOTICE SERVED(4)for the Respondent(s)No. 1,10,11,2,9
==============================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
        and
        HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                  Date: 11/02/2021

                             ORALORDER

(PER: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICEVINEETKOTHARI)

1. In the present Appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Dipak R. Dave has submitted that in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court following various Supreme Court decisions in the case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1370, the mutation entries in the Revenue Records in the RTS proceedings has to be recorded in favour of the purchaser of the land in question under Registered Sale Deed, namely, Nirmalaben Manilal Thakkar (appellant - petitioner No.2) under the Sale

C/LPA/536/2017 ORDER

Deed dated 02.05.2006 which was earlier so entered in favour of such Purchaser under the Pencil Entry No.4892 dated 05.06.2006 which was however, substituted by another Pencil Entry No.4194 in favour of the Respondents, who are the Legal Representatives of Ratilal Thakkar, brother of the Appellant - petitioner No.1 - Natwarlal Shivlal Thakkar, who in his capacity of farmer of the Partnership Firm, Laxmi Vijay Ginning and Processing Factory, had executed the Sale Deed dated 02.05.2006 in favour of the purchaser - Nirmalaben Manilal Thakkar, Petitioner Appellant No.2.

2. He further submitted that by three different Civil Suits were filed by the Respondents - Legal Representatives of Ratilal Thakkar wherein the Sale Deed dated 02.05.2006 has been challenged before the Court of Principal Chief Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, out of which two Civil Suits have already been rejected namely the following :-

(I) Civil Suit No.139/2006 - Yogesh Ratilal Thakkar vs. Natvarlal Shivlal dismissed on 11.04.2014 by Principal Judge, Ahmedabad Rural;

(II) Civil Suit No.453/2007, (New No.25/2017) - Pritiben Ratilal Thakkar vs. Natvarlal Thakkar. Rejected / dismissed on 29.01.2021.

3. He further submitted that the third Civil Suit No.437/2008, Ghanshyam Ratilal Thakkar vs. Natvarlal Thakkar is still pending trial in the same Court. He further submitted that the entry in the revenue record in RTS proceedings should be made on the basis of the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the purchaser and as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme

C/LPA/536/2017 ORDER

Court and this Court that can remain, subject to final decision of the Civil Suits challenging that Sale Deed. He further submitted that the multiple Civil Suits filed by Respondents are frivolous and have been filed just to maintain the wrong Revenue entry on the basis of succession claims made by the respondents, Legal Representatives of Ratilal Thakkar after long number of years.

4. On the other hand Mr. Masoom K. Shah, learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that he may be granted time to verify all the aforesaid facts stated by learned Counsel for the Appellants. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge was right to the extent of holding that the revenue entries will be subject to the fate of the said Civil Suits.

5. In view of the aforesaid, we grant a short accommodation to the learned Counsel for the Respondents, Mr. Masoom K. Shah to verify the facts about the disposal of the Civil Suits in the aforesaid manner and also show cause as to why the name of the purchaser be not entered in revenue entries in the RTS proceedings as per the Registered Sale Deed dated 02.05.2006, subject to fate of the litigation / Civil Suits filed by the Respondents.

6. List again on FEBRUARY 22, 2021.

Sd/-

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)

Sd/-

(GITAGOPI,J) Caroline