Gujarat High Court
Ranjitsinh Vajesinh Kher vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2024
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17556 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RANJITSINH VAJESINH KHER & 2 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4
MR. NIKUNJ KANARA ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR R E VARIAVA(971) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,4.1,4.2,4.3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 01/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up
for final hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
1.1 By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed
for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3.8.2017,
passed by respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.
MVI/HKP/Bharuch/11/2015.
1.2 By way of impugned order dated 3.8.2017 the
learned Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) has
while allowing the Revision Application preferred by
respondents no. 4.1 to 4.3 has quashed and set aside the
order dated 12.11.2014, passed by Collector, Bharuch in
Appeal Case no. 243/13 /8643 to 8650.
2. Heard senior advocate Mr. B.B Naik with learned
advocate Mr. Parthiv Bhatt for the petitioners and
learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the State and learned
advocate Mr. R. E Variava for the respondents
respectively.
3. Brief fact of the case as stated in the petition are as
under:
The petitioners and the respondent no. 4 belongs to the
family of one Vajesinh and Bhagubava. The said family
was holding agricultural lands at village Hirapor,
Taluka :Valiya District Bharuch. A partition by metes and
bounds took place before 1961 between the petitioners
and respondent no.4 in respect of different parcels of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
agricultural lands and their share and possession was
determined. However, in the revenue records the effect of
the aforesaid family partition could not be given and
therefore the names of owners of various parcels of land
pursuant to the family partition could not reflect correctly
and the name of the persons in possession of the land
were not shown in the revenue records. On 16.6.1978, an
agreement was entered into between the predecessors
of respondent no. 4 and petitioners no. 2 and 3 whereby,
all the parties agreed to pay up the dues of various co-
operative societies, banks and private parties which they
had taken as financial assistance against the land which
were running in their names in the revenue records but
they were not in possession of the same and therefore
aforesaid agreement was executed for the payment of
dues of various creditors.
4. Thereafter, in the year 1983 the parties amongst
themselves reduced in writing the aforesaid facts in
respect of their respective possession of the agricultural
lands and on the basis of the aforesaid documents
executed on 15.3.1983, an application was submitted to
Talati cum Mantri of village Hirapor for entering their
respective names who are in possession as owners and
occupiers of agricultural lands which had come to their
share on account of family partition in the revenue
records. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, entry no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
1016 dated 18.3.1983 was mutated. However, the
aforesaid mutations of entry was only in respect of the
following lands: Block nos. 334/1-paiki; 334/2-paiki;
334/1-paiki; 334/2-paiki; 244/1-paiki, 203;244/1-paiki;
218/2-paiki; 150; 256/1-paiki; 263/1-paiki; 331 and 348.
5. Ultimately after following due procedure, notice
under section 135 D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code,
the mutation entry no. 1016 dated 18.3.1983 in respect of
4 blocks was certified i.e block no. 203 block no.150,
block no. 331 and block no. 348. The aforesaid was done
without issuing notice to the concerned parties who were
party to the agreement dated 15.3.1983. Despite the
aforesaid entries, the parties who were in possession of
the agricultural lands prior to 1983 remained in
possession of the land in question and continued to
cultivate the land.
6. In the year 2013, when the heirs of Khumansinh,
Jesangbhava and respondent no. 4 tried to sell the block
no. 334/1, the respondent no. 4 informed the petitioner
that the lands belongs to them in the revenue record and
therefore, in view of the fact that the said blocks are
running in their names, the petitioner applied for the
copy of the revenue record and found that the Mamlatdar
while certifying the entry no. 1016, had given only partial
effect to the said entry in respect of only 4 block
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
members. Thereafter, some civil suits were filed between
the parties, however, the learned senior advocate Mr.
Naik and Mr. Variava jointly states that now the
compromise has arrived at between the parties and one
suit is already withdrawn and another suit is in the
process of being withdrawn.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid act of giving
partial effect to the entry no 1016, the petitioners
preferred an application before the Deputy Collector
Jagadiya by way of preferring an appeal against entry no.
1016 and Deputy Collector Jagadiya, after hearing the
parties and condoning the delay passed an order dated
5.8.2013, and allowed the appeal of the petitioners and
quashed and set aside the order of Mamlatdar, Valiya
whereby entries were certified partially. The aforesaid
order was challenged by respondent no. 4 before the
Collector, Bharuch, by preferring an appeal however the
aforesaid appeal was also dismissed by order dated 3/12
-11- 2014 and therefore the respondent no 4 preferred a
Revision Application being MVI/HKP/Bharuch/ 11-2015
before the learned Secretary, (Appeals) Revenue
Department. However, the learned Secretary Appeals
Revenue Department, after hearing the parties vide
impugned order 3.8.2017, quashed and set aside the
order dated 3/12 -11-2014, passed by Collector, Bharuch
whereby he has confirmed the order passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
Deputy Collector, and that is how being aggrieved and
dissatisfied the order dated 3.8.2017, the petitioner has
preferred this petition.
8. In light of aforesaid factual background, it was
submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. B.B Naik that
now the parties to the present petition ie petitioners and
respondents 4.1 to 4.3 have entered into a compromise
which is in vernacular language and though the aforesaid
compromise deed is not notarised or signed, the parties
have decided to settle the issue and to act upon the
aforesaid compromise deed. Even the representatives of
the respective parties were present before this Court on
31.1.2024 and in their presence the aforesaid deed was
tendered before this Court and hence, the same was
taken on record by this Court on 31.1.2024 by passing
the following order:
" Heard senior advocate Mr. B.B Naik appearing
with learned advocate Mr. Parthiv A. Bhatt for the
petitioner, learned advocate Mr. R E Variava for the
respondents and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for
the respondent -State.
2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Naik, places on
record, a compromise deed which is neither
registered nor notarised but signed by petitioners as
well as respondents no. 4.1,4.2, 4.3. Today head of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
the two families for the petitioner Mr. Ranjitsinh
Vajesinh Kher and for the respondent Mr.
Harendrasinh Khumansinh Kher are present before
this Court and they are identified by Mr. Parthiv A.
Bhatt and learned advocate Mr. R E Variava. Upon
being asked as to whether any compromise as
submitted before this Court and which is
unregistered and unnotarised has been arrived at
between the families or not, both the aforesaid
litigants confirms that the compromise has arrived at
between the parties and nature of dispute is of
private nature and State is only a formal party in
their inter se dispute and once it was specifically
asked to Harendrasinh Khumansinh Kher as to
whether he has any objection if the petition is
allowed in light of the compromise. Mr.
Harendrasinh Khumansinh Kher on his behalf as well
as on behalf of Tejuben Khumansinh Kher and
Sudhaben Khumansinh Kher states in unequivocal
terms that he does not have any objection and he
has already consulted and taken consent from
Tejuben Khumansinh Kher and Sudhaben
Khumansinh Kher who have also signed the
compromise deed that if the petition is allowed they
do not have any objection.
3. At this juncture learned AGP Mr. Nikunj
Kanara request for time for a day to look into the
compromise and to verify as to whether any State's
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
interest is involved in the present petition or not
and whether the State is only a formal party or not.
Hence, upon his request, S.O to 1.2.2024."
9. Learned senior advocate Mr. Naik while referring
the aforesaid order states that now in view of the fact
that the parties have settled the dispute, suits are being
disposed of and withdrawn as per the aforesaid
settlement deed, this Court may allow the petition by
quashing and setting aside the order dated 4.8.2017
passed by Secretary, Revenue Department, in view of the
compromise arrived at between the parties as this is a
private dispute in respect of revenue entry between the
private parties and no interest of State is involved and
State is only a formal party.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Variava appearing for
contesting private respondents i.e respondents 4.1 to 4.3
confirms the aforesaid fact that the parties have already
settled the dispute and even Mr. Variava was also present
when the order dated 31.1.2024 was passed and
therefore, Mr. Variava also upon instructions, as well as
on the strength of compromise arrived at by the parties
which is already on record states that the petition may
be allowed.
11. Learned AGP Mr. Kanara, though vehemently
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
opposed the aforesaid request to allow the petition could
not point out any thing from the records as to how if the
petition is allowed, State's interest would be affected. In
view of a pertinent query from this Court as to how the
State's interest would be jeorpardised, if the petition is
allowed, Mr. Kanara despite making his best efforts
could not point out anything from the record and hence,
left it to the Court to pass appropriate order.
12. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and
on perusal of record, this Court is of the view that the
dispute is entirely in respect of entry no. 1016 which was
mutated in the year 1983, on the basis of the deed
executed in the year 1983, by all the stake holders in
respect of land in question, however, it was given effect
to only in respect of 4 block holders and not the
remaining block holders and therefore, when the
aforesaid mistake was noticed by the parties in the year
2013, the petitioners approached the Deputy Collector by
way of an appeal and though the Deputy Collector and
Collector considered the grievance of the petitioner and
quashed and set aside the entry no. 1016, it is
respondent no. 4 who challenged the aforesaid
proceedings by preferring the Revision Application
before Special Secretary (Appeals) Revision Department.
13. The petition is pending before this Court since 2017,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17556/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
challenging the order dated 3.8.2017. It is very recently
that the contesting parties to this petition have entered
into a compromise which is reduced in writing in
vernacular language and which is on record and
submitted on 31.1.2024 which states that the petitioners
have settled inter se dispute and suits are being disposed
of and withdrawn and when Mr. Variava has specifically
submitted before this Court that he does not have any
objection, if the petition is allowed as well as when this
Court has categorically observed in the order dated
31.1.2024 recording the presence of representatives of
both the sides that respondents no. 4.1 to 4.3 do not
have any objection, if the petition is allowed.
14. In view of that, considering the fact that essentially
the dispute is between two private parties i.e petitioners
and respondents no. 4.1 to 4.3 and in view of
compromise arrived at between the parties when the
respondents do not have any objection if the impugned
order dated 3.8.2017 is quashed and set aside. Hence,
the order dated 3.8.2017 passed by Special Secretary
(Appeals) Revenue Department is hereby quashed and set
aside.
15. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No
order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
