Kapilaben Ramanbhai Amin vs Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 5698 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Kapilaben Ramanbhai Amin vs Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue ... on 27 June, 2024

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/LPA/546/2024                                      ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024

                                                                                          undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 546 of 2024

           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1630 of 2019
                                 With
             CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 546 of 2024
==========================================================
              KAPILABEN RAMANBHAI AMIN & ORS.
                            Versus
   SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS), REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3
 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,6.1,7,8,8.1,8.2,9
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
        AGARWAL
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                                  Date : 27/06/2024

                                  ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

2. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition recording that there is no dispute about the fact that the names of respondents no. 5 to 9 in the original writ petition (and herein) were deleted from the revenue records by Entry No. 8541 dated

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/546/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024

undefined

05.09.1995, based on a Relinquishment Deed, which was signed by both the petitioners herein and respondents no. 5 to 9. The Mutation Entry No. 8541 dated 05.09.1995 was subject matter of challenge in a civil suit, viz. Regular Civil Suit No. 281 of 1997 wherein the petitioners had challenged the validity of the Relinquishment Deed and of the Mutation Entry No. 8541 made on the basis thereof.

3. It is pertinent to note that in the Civil Suit, the other co- sharers of the property, alleged signatories of the Relinquishment Deed, viz. respondents no. 5 to 9 have not been impleaded. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the petitioners in the Civil Suit had only impleaded those co- sharers in whose name the Relinquishment Deed was executed.

4. However, on the basis of the compromise purshis filed by the petitioners, viz. plaintiffs in the Civil Suit and the defendants therein, the Suit was decreed on 04.09.1998, based on the compromise that the Relinquishment Deed and the Mutation Entry No. 8541 based thereon shall be set aside.

5. Pursuant to the decree passed by the Civil Court, the revision pending before the Collector against the order of the Mamlatdar in entering Mutation Entry no. 8541 of 1995 has been allowed and the order was passed to cancel the Mutation Entry no. 8541 qua the petitioners herein and that the name of the petitioners be entered in the revenue records.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/546/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024

undefined

Resultantly, the names of plaintiffs and defendants of original Suit No. 281 of 1997 were entered in the revenue records vide Mutation Entry no. 9336 dated 25.11.1998.

6. Pertinent is to note that after the said compromise decree and the making of Mutation Entry no. 9336 dated 25.11.1998, the defendants in the aforesaid suit had executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 30.01.1999, stated to be a declaration indemnity bond, on the basis whereof entry no.9648 dated 23.07.2001 was mutated in the revenue records and the petitioners became owner and occupiers of the land in question.

7. Thereafter, respondents no.5 to 9 filed an application before the competent authority to give effect to the decree passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 281 of 1997, whereafter the Mutation Entry No. 8541 dated 05.09.1995 has been deleted. The Mamlatdar, vide order dated 30.06.2011 had reentered the names of respondents no. 5 to 9 and mutation entry no. 12810 dated 09.07.2011 was accordingly made, whereby the names of the petitioners and respondents 5 to 9 were entered into the revenue records.

8. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the Prant Officer and Deputy Collector, which was rejected. The revision filed before the Collector and later to the SSRD had also been rejected, which had led to filing of the writ petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/546/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024

undefined

9. The learned Single Judge has recorded that once entry no. 8541 was set aside, as per the settlement purshis filed by the petitioners before the Civil Court and a decree was drawn in terms of the compromise and Entry No. 8541 was held nullity and was cancelled by the Collector in Revision Application No. 38 of 1998, the Mamlatdar cannot be said to have erred in entering the names of the respondents no. 5 to 9 vide order dated 30.06.2011, vide Entry No. 12810 dated 09.07.2011.

10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge is that respondents no. 5 to 9 had never challenged the Relinquishment Deed nor were party to the Civil Suit filed by the petitioners and hence, they could not have been given benefit of the decree passed by the Civil Court. From the fact that Entry No. 8541 dated 05.09.1995 was deleted from the revenue records, pursuant to the decree passed in the Civil Suit and the revisional order passed by the Collector, no benefit can be accorded to the respondents no. 5 to 9, who had never challenged the Relinquishment Deed or the entry based thereon.

11. Dealing with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, suffice it to note that the petitioners had succeeded in getting a decree in Civil Suit No. 281 of 1997 by only impleading the persons in whose favour the Relinquishment Deed was executed. However, all other co-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/546/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024

undefined

owners of the property in question were not impleaded in the Civil Suit. When the case of the plaintiffs-petitioners in the plaint itself was that the Relinquishment Deed was an outcome of fraud as it was never signed by the petitioners or it did not contain the signature of the petitioners, they cannot be permitted to turnaround and say that the Relinquishment Deed would survive, insofar as, the respondents no. 5 to 9 are concerned. It is evident that in the plaint itself, the plaintiffs had challenged the validity of the Relinquishment Deed being a forged and fabricated document, prepared behind their back and not containing their signature.

12. With the compromise arrived between the petitioners and the defendants in whose favour the Relinquishment Deed was executed, correctness of which was subject matter of challenge before the Civil Court, with a decree passed by the Civil Court, the Relinquishment Deed would loose its legality, even loose its existence as a legal document, so far as respondents no. 5 to 9 are concerned.

13. Any subsequent agreement arrived between the petitioners and the defendants of the aforesaid Civil Suit, by way of the Declaration Indemnity Bond dated 30.01.1999, the petitioners cannot acquire any right, title or interest in the property, which was falling in the share of respondents no. 5 to 9 and which was brought into the share of the defendants of the civil suit, in whose favour, the Relinquishment Deed was jointly signed by the petitioners and respondents no. 5 to 9.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/LPA/546/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024

undefined

14. The fact remains that with the extinction of the document, viz. Relinquishment Deed jointly signed by the petitioners and respondents no. 5 to 9 and the deletion of Mutation Entry No.8541 dated 05.05.1995, on the basis of decree of the Civil Court dated 04.05.1998 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 281 of 1997, the only option before the Mamlatdar was to restore the names of respondents no. 5 to 9 in the revenue records. No infirmity, therefore, can be found in the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge.

15. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

Connected Civil Application would not survive in view of the disposal of the main appeal itself.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI