[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mangaldas Sukhram Bava vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4029 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
MANGALDAS SUKHRAM BAVA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 9
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR. JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for Respondent State authorities
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar for the writ applicants
and Mr.Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent State.
2. The private respondent nos.7 to 9, though served, have chosen not
to appear.
3. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Rule returnable forthwith.
Mr.Parikh, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent State authorities.
4. The present petition is directed against the impugned order dated
05.04.2018 passed by the Respondent No.3 - District Collector, Anand in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
RTS /RA/ 421 of 2016 confirmed by the Respondent No.1 Special
Secretary Revenue Department, ('SSRD', for short) in Revision
Application being MVV/HKP/Anand/ 73/ 2018 the order dated
07.12.2018 wherein by the impugned order passed by the Respondent
No.3 dated 05.04.2018, without considering the contention raised by the
petitioner in their reply allowed Revision No.421 of 2016 preferred by the
private respondents by quashing and setting aside the common order
dated 28.06.2016 passed in RTS Appeal Nos.195 of 2015, 285 of 2015
and 367 of 2015 passed by the Deputy Collector.
5. The aforesaid order was confirmed by learned SSRD by passing
impugned order dated 07.12.2018 without considering the fact that there
was huge delay in exercising powers by the District Collector while
passing the impugned order. The aforesaid has given rise to filing of the
present petition having prayed for following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
madamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the respondent -
District Collector in RTS / RA/ 421 of 2016 (at ANNEXURE-E
hereto) as well as the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed by
the respondent - Special Secretary, Revenue Department in
Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/ Anand / 73 of 2018 (at
ANNEXURE - F hereto);
(B) During the pendency and Final disposal of the present
petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further
operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order
dated 05.04.2018 passed by the respondent - District Collector in
RTS / RA/ 421 of 2016 (at ANNEXURE-E hereto) as well as the
impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the respondent -
Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application
No.MVV / HKP / Anand / 73 / of 2018 (at ANNEXURE-F
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
hereto) and direct the respondents to maintain status-quo with
respect to the land in question;
(C) Pass any such other and / or further orders that may be
thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case."
6. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present petition reads
thus:
6.1 Entry No.2289 came to be mutated pursuant to the order passed by
the Mamlatdar, Petlad by order dated 07.01.2015 with respect to land
admeasuring 525 sq mtr of Revenue Survey / Block No.929 from total
admeasuring Hec.- Are- Sq mtr 2-03-35 sq mtr situated at Mouje Dantali,
Tal.Petlad, Dist.Anand in favour of petitioner no2 herein.
6.2 The said order was challenged by private respondents by
preferring RTS Appeal No.195 of 2015 before the Deputy Collector,
Petlad. Similarly, private respondents also challenged the order dated
03.02.2000 passed by the Mamlatdar, Petlad directing to delete / cancel
the words 'Shree Ranchhodji Maharaj Pujari' with respect to Block
Nos.179, 659 and 929 for which private respondents preferred RTS
Appeal No.285 of 2015 before the Deputy Collector, Petlad.
6.3 Insofar as land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.179, 659 and 929 are
concerned regarding Entry No.2307 dtd.07.04.2015, Respondent No.7 i.e.
Sarpanch had also filed Case No.27 of 2015 for cancellation of Entry
No.2307 dtd.07.04.2015 regarding charge of Rs.1,20,000/- of Bank of
Baroda upon the aforesaid survey numbers.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
6.4 By order dated 16.09.2015, the Mamlatdar, Petlad allowed the said
application and cancelled Entry No.2307 dtd.07.04.2015. Feeling
aggrieved with the said order, petitioners herein filed RTS Appeal No.367
of 2015 along with other RTS Appeal Nos.195 of 2015 and 285 of 2015
before the Deputy Collector, Petlad. The Deputy Collector, Petla, vide
common oral order dated 28.06.2016 partly allowed only the RTS Appeal
No.367 of 2015 and rest of the appeals are ordered to be "filed".
6.5 Being aggrieved by the said common oral order dated 28.06.2016,
the private respondents preferred Revision Application No.421 of 2016
before the District Collector, Anand which came to be allowed by order
dated 05.04.2018 against the said order, the petitioners preferred Revision
Application being No.MVV / HKP / 73 / 2018 before the learned Special
Secretary, Revenue Department ('SSRD' for short) which came to be
dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.12.2018. The private
respondents preferred Regular Civil Suit No.100 of 2015 which was
dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.12.2018, having attained finality
(Annexure-H to the petition).
6.6 The private respondents no.8 and 9 approached the Joint Charity
Commissioner seeking prayer for framing the scheme under Section 50A
of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 on 03.01.2019 which was
remanded which gave rise to filing of proceedings by way of Special
Civil Application No.645 of 2019 whereby by order dated 16.01.2019
proceedings were remanded back to the Joint Charity Commissioner
wherein the said proceedings are pending adjudication.
7. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, at
the outset, submitted that the impugned orders passed by the competent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
authority was without considering the contentions raised by the
petitioners herein in the said proceedings. It is submitted that the Entry
No.2289 mutated on 07.01.2015 in respect of land admeasuring 525 sq
mtr out of total land admeasuring Hec.Are.Sq Mtr. 2-03-35 sq mtr of
Block No.929 by virtue of sale-deed no.260 dtd.04.12.2014 executed
between the present petitioners which was certified by the Mamlatdar.
7.1 It is submitted that the private respondents challenged the order
passed by the Mamlatdar dated 03.02.2000 whereby the word 'Shree
Ranchhodji Maharaj Pujari' was ordered to be deleted after the delay of
15 years.
7.2 It is submitted that the impugned orders are such that they are
required to be quashed and set aside on the sole ground that the said
appeals could not have been entertained in absence of any application
seeking for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the order dated
03.02.2000 which is interfered with by Collector and duly confirmed by
SSRD is after a period of 15 years and the same would fail the test of
'reasonable period'.
7.3 It is further submitted that validity of the sale-deed would be
subject matter of civil proceedings. The entry which was mutated in the
revenue record pursuant to the registered sale-deed could not have been
cancelled even that the said appeal was barred by delay of 79 days. It is
submitted that on the aforesaid ground alone the impugned orders are
required to be quashed and set aside.
8. Mr.Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent State authorities submitted that no interference is called for in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
the impugned order passed by the competent authorities mainly on the
ground that the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 03.02.2000 was
erroneous wherein the word 'Shree Ranchhodji Maharaj Pujari' was
ordered to be deleted in light of the fact that the respondent Collector has
arrived at finding of fact that PTR records that the property is in the name
of the trust and is of the ownership of the trust and mutated in the name of
trust. In view thereof, the order of the Mamlatdar in RTS Application
No.Vashi 2578 dated 03.02.2000 was quashed and set aside and that it
was inferred that the petitioner No.1 had placed erroneous or false facts
before the Mamlatdar and in view thereof order dated 03.02.2000 has
rightly been quashed and set aside by the Respondent No.3 and duly
confirmed by Respondent No.2 SSRD.
8.1 It is submitted that once the order dated 03.02.2000 passed by the
Mamlatdar is quashed and set aside the subsequent entry pursuant to the
sale deed was also quashed and set aside which requires no interference.
8.2 It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 being Poojari and to
substantiate his argument that name of Poojari could not have been
mutated in revenue record, learned AGP relied on ratio laid down (2021)
10 SCC 222 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Pujari
Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti & Anr. , para:30 more particularly thereof.
9. In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr.Majmudar reiterated the
contentions referred to herein above and submitted that it was
proceedings were initiated by private respondents by way of an appeal
and in view thereof competent authorities could not have decided the
appeals on merits in absence of any application seeking condonation of
delay, as provided under Rule 108(5) of the Rules.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
10. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties, it appears
that it is not in dispute that the Entry No.2289 was mutated in the revenue
record pursuant to the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar, Petlad
dated 07.01.2015 with respect to the subject land in favour of petitioner
No.2 herein. The said order was challenged by the private respondents by
preferring RTS Appeal No.195 of 2015 before the Deputy Collector,
Petlad wherein there was delay of 79 days. Further it is also not in dispute
that the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Petlad dated 03.02.2000 directing
to delete / cancel the word 'Shree Ranchhodji Maharaj Pujari' with
respect to Block No.179, 659 and 929 was challenged by private
respondents before the Deputy Collector after delay of 15 years by way of
RTS Appeal No.285 of 2015.
11. At this state, it is apposite to refer to Rule 108 (5) of the Gujarat
Land Revenue Rules, 1972 ('the Rules', for short) which reads thus:
"Rule - 108.
(1) Disputes entered .... xxxxx
(5) An appeal against an order under this rule shall, if the order has been
made by the Mamlatdar's First Karkun, the Mamlatdar, the District Inspector
or Revenue Officer of lower rank than that of a Deputy Collector lie to the
Sub-Divisional Officer, or to an officer appointed by the State Government in
this behalf, and if the order has been made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the
Superintendent of Land Records Office of a rank not lower than that of a
Deputy Collector, to the Collector: such appeal shall be presented within sixty
days from the date on which the copy of the order was served on the appellant
or was otherwise intimated to him:
Provided that the appellate authority may after recording its reasons in writing
admit an appeal after the aforesaid period of sixty days if it is satisfied that
the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within such
period.
Subject to the provisions of [61][sub-rules (6) and (6A)] the decision of the
appellate authority shall be final. There shall be no appeal against the order of
the Collector. No second appeal shall lie in any case."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
12. The settled proposition of the law enunciated in the case of Ragho
Singh vs. Mohan Singh and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 717, more
particularly para:6, which reads as under:
"6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since it is not
disputed that the appeal filed before the Additional Collector was
beyond time by 10 days and an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act was not filed for condonation of delay, there was no
jurisdiction in the Additional Collector to allow that appeal. The
appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The
Board of Revenue before which the question of limitation was
agitated was of the view that though an application for condonation
of delay was not filed, the delay shall be deemed to have been
condoned. This is patently erroneous. In this situation, the High
Court was right in setting aside the judgment of the Additional
Collector as also of the Board of Revenue. We find no infirmity in
the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. No costs."
13. In view of settled position of law and in the facts of the present
case, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is required to be
interfered with on the aforesaid ground alone that appeals that were filed
by the private respondents are barred by limitation and have been decided
without being accompanied by application for condonation of delay as
provided under Rule 108(5) of the Rules, wherein an appeal is to be
presented within a period of 60 days or otherwise application showing
sufficient cause for delay is to be presented. In absence of such
application, the respondent authorities were estopped to proceed on
merits. Further, upon perusal of the record, it also emerges that the
contentions raised by petitioners herein in both the proceedings before the
competent forum, which are also incorporated in the impugned orders
that the appeals filed by the private respondents are barred by delay,
though recorded are not dealt with by the respondent authorities while
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
passing the impugned orders.
14. It is also not in dispute that the private respondents herein and
others preferred Civil Suit which was dismissed for default which
attained finality.
15. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 are at large before learned Charity
Commissioner under Section 51 of Gujarat Public Trusts Act for framing
of scheme.
16. The judgment relied upon by learned AGP in case of State of
Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and
another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 222 as such would not be applicable
to the facts of the present case. Though it is not in dispute that the order
03.02.2000 passed by the Mamlatdar, Petlad subject matter of challenge
after a period of 15 years, the same fails the test of "reasonable time".
16.1 In the facts of the present case, upon perusal of additional
affidavit filed by the petitioner, land was originally classified as a
Devasthan Inam and was cultivated by the petitioner no.1 which was
retained by petitioner no.1 in his personal capacity as recorded in revenue
entry no.1082 dtd.06.04.1970. By the Government Resolution dated
03.05.2017 land would be considered to be held in personal capacity of
petitioner no.1 as old tenure land in view Clause:2 of the said
Government Resolution.
17. In view of above discussion, in the facts of the present case and
position of law as referred above, in exercise the extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the District Collector Anand in RTS
Revision Application No.421 of 2016 is quashed and set aside and the
order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the SSRD in Revision Application
No.MVV/ HKP/ Anand / 73 of 2018 are hereby quashed and set aside.
The present petition is allowed.
18. Resultantly, the sale-deed Entry No.2289 be revived in the revenue
record which would be subject to outcome of proceedings which are
pending before the Charity Commissioner under Section 50(A) of the
Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950.
19. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
