Jannatbai D/O Mamad Suleman Sandhani vs The Special Secretary (Appeals), ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 816 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Jannatbai D/O Mamad Suleman Sandhani vs The Special Secretary (Appeals), ... on 31 January, 2024

Author: Nirzar S. Desai

Bench: Nirzar S. Desai

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/21730/2019                                ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

                                                                                    undefined




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.21730 of 2019

=========================================
              JANNATBAI D/O MAMAD SULEMAN SANDHANI
                               Versus
       THE SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS), REVENUE DEPARTMENT
=========================================
Appearance :
MR SANDEEP LIMBANI FOR VISHAL S AWTANI AND HETAL V CHAVDA for the
Petitioners.
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
MR PRADEEP PATEL for the Respondent No.5.
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent Nos.3,4
=========================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                            Date : 31/01/2024
                             ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.1.2016 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/KUTCH/44-A of 2012 as well as the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by the Collector, Kutch in RTS/Revision Case No.94 of 2009. The petitioners have also prayed for mutation of revenue entry in their names.

2. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Limbani for Mr. Vishal Awtani for the petitioners, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned advcoate Mr. Pradeep Patel for respondent No.5.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21730/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

undefined

3.1 It is the case of the petitioners that land bearing Revenue Survey No.4 admeasuring Acre 13.10 Gunthas situated at village Tuna, Taluka Anjar, Dist. Kutch was in the name of Suleman Ismail Sandhani and his name was there in the village Form 8/A and 7/12 extracts. Suleman Sandhani was survived by 15 legal heirs including the present petitioners. Upon death of Suleman Sandhani, Entry No.1028 was mutated on 18.6.2005 and it was a succession entry. The said entry was not certified and the same was cancelled and set aside on 3.8.2005. Entry No.1029 was mutated on 18.6.2005 pursuant to relinquishment of rights of certain legal heirs including the present petitioners. According to the case of the petitioners, Entry Nos.1028 and 1029 which were never certified and quashed does not have much bearing on the facts of the case, but what is important for the present facts of the case is Entry Nos.1053 and 1054. Entry No.1053 was mutated on 5.8.2005 whereby heirs of Suleman Sandhani including the present petitioners relinquished their rights in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 during pendency of Entry No.1029. Both Entry Nos.1053 and 1054 came to be certified on 20.9.2005 and by way of Entry No.1054, names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 were mutated in the revenue record, after following due procedure of issuance of notice under Section 135-D. The respondent No.5 purchased the land in question from respondent Nos.3 and 4 by executing registered Sale Deed on 26.7.2005 for which Entry No.1097 was mutated which was certified on 17.2.2006.

3.2 The dispute raised by the petitioners is in respect of Entry Nos.1053, 1054 and 1097. The petitioners challenged the said entries by way of Appeal No.108 of 2008 before the Assistant Collector, Anjar and the said appeal was allowed by order dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21730/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

undefined

9.9.2009.

3.3 Being aggrieved, the respondent No.5 preferred revision application being RRT/Revision/Case No.94 of 2009 before the Collector, Kutch and the Collector, Kutch vide order dated 31.8.2012 allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside order dated 9.9.2009 of the learned Assistant Collector, Anjar.

3.4 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Revision Application before the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) being Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/KUTCH/44-A of 2012. However, the learned SSRD rejected the said revision application vide order dated 30.1.2016.

3.5 Hence being aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2016 of the learned SSRD as well as the order dated 31.8.2012 of the Collector, Kutch, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Limbani for the petitioners submitted that Entry Nos.1053, 1054 and 1097 were rightly quashed by the learned Assistant Collector, Anjar as the petitioners never relinquished their rights in respect of subject land and the deed of relinquishment was a fabricated and fraudulent deed and the same was unregistered document whereby the rights of the petitioners over the land in question were relinquished. He further submitted that the Sale Deed was executed in favour of respondent No.5 by respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the basis of forged document

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21730/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

undefined

and, therefore, those entries were rightly quashed and set aside by the Assistant Collector, Anjar and, therefore, the Collector, Kutch and learned SSRD have committed gross error in not appreciating the said aspect of the matter and quashing and setting aside the order of the learned Assistant Collector, Anjar.

Except the above submission, no other submissions were made by learned advocate Mr. Limbani.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. P. J. Patel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that the petitioners have already challenged Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.5 by filing Special Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 (which was re-numbered as Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2015) and the said suit was decided against the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2016. Being aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the said judgment and decree by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.8 of 2016 which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 7.9.2018 passed by learned 11th (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Kachchh at Anjar. Therefore, the very basis on which genuineness of the Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 has not been believed by the Civil Court, this Court may not interfere with the impugned orders. He further submitted that unregistered relinquishment deed was the sole basis to challenge the Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 and as the suit is decided against the petitioners based on the order of the revenue authorities whereby the authorities have confirmed the mutation of revenue entries being Entry Nos.1053, 1054 and 1097, therefore now even after decision of Civil Court in favour of respondent No.5, there is no ground available for the petitioners to challenge the impugned orders

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21730/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

undefined

passed by the revenue authorities. He, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

6. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that this being the private dispute and the rights of the parties have also been crystalized by the competent Civil Court and confirmed in appeal, the State is only a formal party and, therefore, appropriate order be passed.

7. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. I found that challenge to Entry Nos.1053, 1054 and 1097 are solely based on the ground that Deed of Relinquishment of right by the petitioners was a fraudulent document and the same was never registered. Therefore, any Sale Deed executed on the basis of the aforesaid document in favour of respondent No.5 is also a fraud committed with the petitioners and, therefore, such sale as well as revenue entries based on such sale is invalid. Now, the very basis of the aforesaid contention is not believed by the competent Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2015 by judgment and decree dated 19.8.2016 and the said order is confirmed by the Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.8 of 2016 vide order dated 7.9.2018. In view of the above, since civil litigation is already decided against the petitioners and in favour of respondent No.5 as the respondent No.5 has purchased the land in question from respondent Nos.3 and 4 who became the owner of the land in question on the basis of the aforesaid deed of relinquishment executed by the petitioners. Hence, Entry Nos.1053, 1054 and 1097 have rightly been mutated in the name of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. Hence, in view of the order passed by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21730/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024

undefined

the competent Civil Court and confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court, the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities below cannot be said to be erroneous.

8. In view of the above, I do not see any reason to entertain the present petition. Therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

SAVARIYA