Thakore Mafaji Sursangji vs Special/Joint Secretary , ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5158 Guj

     C/SCA/545/2023                                         ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 545 of 2023

==========================================================
                    THAKORE MAFAJI SURSANGJI
                             Versus
         SPECIAL/JOINT SECRETARY , REVENUE DEPARTMENT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT P PATEL(3498) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR.ASHUTOSH DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                                   Date : 04/07/2023

                                    ORAL ORDER

1. The present Special Civil Application is filed

praying for the following reliefs:-

      "(A)     Allow this petition;
      (B)      Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Collector and the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.75 of 2015;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Collector and the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.75 of 2015;

      (D)      Be pleased to grant any other relief which deems fit and





      C/SCA/545/2023                                  ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023




               proper in the interest of justice."

2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the

forefather of the petitioner was owner and in possession of

land bearing Survey Nos. 115 and 116 mauje Godasan,

District - Patan. After the demise of forefather, father of the

petitioner became owner of the said land and he was

cultivating the said land. That in the year 1947, the grand

father of the petitioner herein executed the registered sale-

deed in favour of the Thakor Chaturji Hathiji i.e. the father of

the respondent no.4. That, thereafter, the tenancy proceeding

came to be initiated in the year 1962 in respect of the land in

question. By the order dated 18.05.1962, the said proceeding

came to be closed by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Patan

on the ground that the father of the petitioner was cultivating

the land in capacity of owner. That, on 09.03.2000, the Entry

No.556 came to be mutated in the revenue records on the

basis of registered sale-deed executed in the year 1947 by the

learned Mamlatdar along with entry for names on the basis of

heirship. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know

about Mutation Entry No.556 dated 09.03.2000 only in the

C/SCA/545/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023

year 2014 and therefore, the petitioner preferred RTS Case

No.17 of 2015 before the Deputy Collector, Patan for

cancellation of Mutation Entry No.556 dated 09.03.2000. The

respondent no.4 who was owner of the said land in question

opposed the proceeding. By the order dated 11.03.2015, the

Deputy Collector, Patan was pleased to allow the RTS Case

No.17 of 2015 and cancelled the Mutation Entry No.556 dated

09.03.2000.

2.1 Aggrieved, the respondent no.4 preferred RTS

Revision Application No.31 of 2015 before the Collector, Patan.

By the order dated 30.06.2015, the Collector was pleased to

quash and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector dated

11.03.2015.

2.2 Aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred RTS

Revision Application No.75 of 2015 before the Joint Secretary,

Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who by the

impugned judgment and order dated 26.02.2018 rejected the

said Revision Application and upheld the order passed by the

Collector. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present

C/SCA/545/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023

Special Civil Application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was cultivating the land as owner and was in

possession throughout even after sale-deed executed by the

grand-father of the petitioner in the year 1947. He submits

that despite the registered sale, the respondent no.4 never

applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. He

submits that the first time in the year 2000, the respondent

no.4 moved an application for entering their names by

mutation on the basis of sale-deed which was executed in the

year 1947. He submits that accordingly, the Entry No.556

dated 09.03.2000 came to be mutated. The petitioner has

come to know about the said mutation entry only in the year

2014 and therefore, he has immediately obtained necessary

certified copy and thereafter challenged the said Mutation

Entry No.556 before the learned Deputy Collector, Patan. He

submits that the Deputy Collector, Patan by cogent reasons

allowed the said RTS Appeal No.17 of 2015. He submits that

the Deputy Collector has examined the documents produced

by both the parties while ordering cancelling Mutation Entry

C/SCA/545/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023

No.556 dated 09.03.2000. He submits that the learned

Collector as well as learned Joint Secretary Revenue

Department (SSRD) have wrongly reversed the findings of the

Deputy Collector on the ground of limitation. He submits that

the petitioner had cogently explained the delay of 14 years in

challenging the Mutation Entry No.556 dated 09.03.2000. He

submits that only after the death of his father, when the

petitioner went to mutate his name as a heir, at that time, it

was revealed that the Mutation Entry No 556 was already

entered in the revenue records. He submits that there was no

delay in challenging such Mutation Entry. He further submits

that on perusal of the revenue records, it reveals that there

was joint entry made by the learned Mamlatdar in respect of

the registered sale-deed executed in the year 1947 as well as

mutating names by way of heirship of the respondent no.4. He

submits that the same is not permitted in law. He further

submits that in respect of land in question, the Mutation

Entry No.19 which related to subsequent sale-deed in favour

of Kashidas Savdas Patel was also existing as well as Entry

No.257 in respect of the tenancy proceeding closing the case of

the tenancy and declaring the father of the petitioner to be

C/SCA/545/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023

cultivating the land in the capacity of owner were also existing

on record when the Mutation Entry No.556 dated 09.03.2000

came to be effected. He therefore submits that the present

Special Civil Application be allowed and the order passed by

the learned Collector as well as learned SSRD be set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the documents on record.

5. The learned Collector as well as learned SSRD in

the present case have taken note of relevant facts that the

grand-father of the petitioner had already sold the land in

question in the year 1947 by way of a registered sale-deed.

The said sale-deed has never been challenged till date.

Further, the facts reveal that the appeal in the present case

against the revenue Entry No.556 dated 09.03.2000 has been

initiated by the petitioner after a period of 14 years. The

explanation for the said delay of 14 years is that the petitioner

had gone to mutate his name in the place of his father's name,

at that time, the petitioner came to know about Mutation

Entry No.556 in the revenue proceeding. The learned Collector

C/SCA/545/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023

noting that no appropriate proceedings have been taken by the

grand-father of the petitioner and further noting that while

effecting the Mutation Entry No.556 consent and the affidavit

of the petitioner was taken, however, the petitioner has in the

appeal proceeding challenged the Mutation Entry has denied

the same. Further, learned Collector has held that there was a

delay of 14 years in challenging the Mutation Entry No.556

and on the cogent grounds, the appeal preferred by the

respondent no.4 came to be allowed and the order of Deputy

Collector came to be quashed. Learned SSRD while noting the

factual situation as well as the documents on record has

upheld the order of Collector. In the present case, admittedly,

the registered sale-deed executed by the petitioner's grand-

father has not been challenged by the petitioner. The

petitioner has only challenged the Mutation Entry on the basis

of occupancy on the said land which is denied by the

respondent no.4. Once the land is sold, the petitioner has no

locus to challenge the mutation entry on the basis of the

same.

6. The view taken by the learned Collector and learned

C/SCA/545/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2023

SSRD are based on cogent reasons and documents available

on record. No interference is called for. The judgment passed

by the learned Collector as well as learned SSRD are in

accordance with law and the same require no interference.

7. The present Special Civil Application is devoid of

merits and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) NABILA