Gujarat High Court
Soniyaben Prakashbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9781/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9781 of 2023
==========================================================
SONIYABEN PRAKASHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. D. P. KINARIWALA(410) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NACHIKET A DAVE(5308) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 17/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.P. Kinariwala for the petitioner,
learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent-State and learned
Advocate Mr. Nachiket A. Dave for the respondent No.5.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated
10.02.2023 passed by the SSRD, more particularly whereby order passed
by the Collector, Surat, dated 29.01.2020 has been confirmed.
3. It would appear that the issue is with regard to an entry mutated in
the revenue record being entry no. 2122, more particularly whereby the
name of the petitioner had been mutated in the revenue record as a co-
owner of the property in question. It would appear that while such an
entry had been mutated in the year 2000, the respondent No.5 herein, in
whose name the property was standing, had challenged the same by
approaching the Deputy Collector, Olpad, inter alia submitting that the
entry had been given effect to based upon a special power of attorney and
the special power of attorney very clearly set out that the power of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9781/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
attorney holder did not have any power to sell, convey, assign, mortgage
or change interest of the owner in the property in question. It would
appear that originally an application for condonation of delay had been
filed along with the main appeal and whereas vide an order dated
12.01.2018, the delay in preferring appeal had been condoned vide order
dated 27.02.2018, the entry no. 2122 had been set aside, more particularly
holding that the power of attorney deed did not grant any power to the
holder to incorporate name of a third person in the entry with regard to
the land in question. The said order had been upheld by the Collector in a
revision application preferred by the present petitioner vide order dated
29.01.2020 and whereas the same had been challenged by the petitioner
by preferring revision application before the SSRD and vide order dated
10.02.2023, the revision application had also been rejected by confirming
order passed by the Collector, referred to hereinabove.
4. While learned Advocate for the petitioner has made various
submissions, more particularly with regard to the competence of the
revenue authorities to examine the powers derived under a power of
attorney deed and whereas the same is sought to be opposed by the
learned Advocate for the respondent No.5, to this Court, it would appear
that the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.5 are alredy
contesting the very issue in a civil suit which has been preferred by the
present petitioner. To this Court, it would appear that going into the
merits of the issue would entail this Court giving a finding as to whether
the power of attorney infact entitled the power of attorney holder i.e. the
father of the present petitioner to have name of the petitioner mutated in
the revenue record or not. To this Court, it would appear that if any
observation is made by this Court in that regard, the same would cloud
the judgment of the learned Tiral Court which is already seized of the
civil suit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9781/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
5. In any case, learned Advocate Mr. Kinariwala would submit that
the orders passed by the revenue authorities with regard to entry no. 2122
may be subject to the final result of the civil suit which is preferred by the
present petitioner.
6. Having regard to the above discussion and observations as also
having regard to the request made by learned Advocate Mr. Kinariwala,
to this Court, it would appear that the following directions would meet
with the ends of justice.
(i) The orders impugned passed by the revenue authorities are not
interfered with.
(ii) It is clarified that the final outcome of the civil suit which is
preferred by the present petitioner i.e Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 2018
pending before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Olpad, shall
govern the rights of the parties, more particularly with regard to the entry
no. 2122.
7. With the above observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
BDSONGARA
