Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1138 (GUJ)

Jayantilal Karsanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-03

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2017
ORDER : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 18th October 2017 passed by the Special Secretary of the Revenue Department (Appeals), by which, the S.S.R.D allowed the revision application filed by the respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 herein, thereby quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and Collector respectively. 2. The dispute pertains to a land bearing survey No. 287 paiki situated at Mouje: Sama, Taluka: Vadodara. The case of the respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8, as a Revisionist before the S.S.R.D, was that they have purchased the land in question from the original owner by a registered sale deed. On the strength of the sale deed, an entry came to be mutated bearing No. 8358. 3. It appears that with respect to the very same parcel of land, the original owner executed an agreement to sale in favour of the applicants herein. It also appears that there is a Regular Civil Suit No. 100 of 2005 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadodara by the applicants herein, praying for specific performance of the contract and injunction. It also appears that below Exhibit: 5, the Civil Court ordered the parties to maintain status-quo. In such circumstances, the applicants herein questioned the legality and validity of the entry bearing No. 8358 mutated in favour of the respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 before the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar ordered the entry to be cancelled. 4. Being dissatisfied, the respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 went before the Deputy Collector. Before the Deputy Collector also, they lost. Thereafter, they went before the Collector, and before the Collector also, they lost. Thereafter, they approached the S.S.R.D, and the S.S.R.D allowed the revision application quashing and setting aside all the three orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the S.S.R.D in passing the impugned order. The entire claim or rather the challenge put-forward by the applicants herein is on the basis of an agreement to sale. The entire claim or rather the challenge put-forward by the applicants herein is on the basis of an agreement to sale. The civil suit filed by the applicants is pending as on date. On the other hand, the respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have a registered sale deed in their favour, and on the strength of the registered sale deed, the entry No. 8358 came to be mutated. Ultimately, it is the Civil Court, who is going to decide the final rights of the parties. The entry disputed by the applicants herein will be subject to the final outcome of the Regular Civil Suit No. 100 of 2005. 6. The S.S.R.D, in my view, is right in taking the view that the agreement to sale does not confer any right, title or interest in the property. 7. With the above, this application is disposed of.