Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 621 (GUJ)

PRIYA ATUL LALWANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-04-17

N.V.ANJARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dakshesh Mehta for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent State and its authorities and learned advocate Mr.I.M. Pandya for the private respondents. 2. This petition is directed against order dated 19th August, 2016 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, whereby Revision Application No.08 of 2016 preferred by the present petitioners came to be dismissed, resultantly, order dated 16th November, 2015 passed by the Collector, Navsari, was maintained. 3. The dispute dealt with by the revenue authorities was in respect of Mutation Entry No.2394. This Entry was mutated on 20th October, 2012 in respect of land bearing Survey No.4 situated at Village Kadoli, Taluka Jalalpore, pursuant to sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The land in question originally stood in the name of one Sumanbhai Manilal and others. 3.1 It appears that the In-charge Mamlatdar cancelled the said Entry No.2394, against which order the present petitioner preferred Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Navsari, which came to be rejected. Revision filed before the Collector against the said order also was dismissed. Thereafter came to be filed the Revision Application culminating into the impugned order. 4. The case of the objectors private respondents herein against continuation of Mutation Entry was that the sale deed was not liable to be recognised in asmuch as the permission to use the land was for industrial purpose as given by the Deputy Collector. It was further contended that Special Civil Suit No.08 of 2013 was pending before the Civil Court and the Entry could not have been mutated until the outcome of the civil suit. Furthermore, it was also the case that respondent No.3 had title interest in the land, therefore also the land could not have been subjected to sell. It was the objection that there was breach of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and therefore also, the sale was illegal. 4.1 It thus appears that Special Civil Suit No.08 of 2013 filed by respondent No.3 herein has been pending before the competent civil court at Navsari in which the sale deed is called in question as illegal. The objector also put-forth his interest on the basis of plea of co-ownership. 4.1 It thus appears that Special Civil Suit No.08 of 2013 filed by respondent No.3 herein has been pending before the competent civil court at Navsari in which the sale deed is called in question as illegal. The objector also put-forth his interest on the basis of plea of co-ownership. 4.2 All the objections of the kind and nature mentioned above are sought to be raised against the mutation of Entry necessarily falls within the adjudicatory realm of civil court. Civil suit is pending. In the civil suit, registered sale deed on the basis of which Entry No.2394 was mutated, is under challenge. Title related rights of the parties would be determined by the civil court when it decides the civil suit finally upon evidence. The present Entry was entered in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed. 5. It is trite principle that when basis shown for seeking Mutation Entry is a registered document, designated officer has to respect the registered transaction and Mutation Entry ought to be recorded. He cannot refuse making of revenue entry on certain spacious plea by disregarding the registered sale deed. The claimed civil rights or title-related rights or ownership rights by the objectors or third party would not justify the revenue authority to refuse to record the Mutation Entry on the basis of the registered sale transaction. 5.1 In Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P.O.A. Holder Ashok J. Patel v. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel, (2005) 3 GLR 2233 , law has been laid down by this Court stating that where the transfer of land takes place under a registered sale deed, the revenue authority has to mutate the Entry. 5.2 In Balvantrai Ambaram Patel v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.5464 of 2014 decided on 08th May, 2014, this Court stated, "6. Therefore in all cases of claims for mutation based on a registered document, the competent officer has to be entered the name of the claimant-owner-right holder. The authority cannot insist for observing the requirements of Section 135-D apriori and on that basis declined to enter the name in the revenue records. The designated officer in charge of the said function has no jurisdiction to disregard the legal effect of the registered document, and he cannot be permitted to do so even indirectly. The authority cannot insist for observing the requirements of Section 135-D apriori and on that basis declined to enter the name in the revenue records. The designated officer in charge of the said function has no jurisdiction to disregard the legal effect of the registered document, and he cannot be permitted to do so even indirectly. Once the petitioner purchased the land in question by virtue of registered sale deed, he is entitled to have his name mutated in the revenue records. The reasons given in the impugned order dated 04.02.2014 of the Mamlatdar for not mutating the entry and insisting for consent letters, etc., have no sanction of law and they do not hold good in light of the statutory provisions noted above." 5.3 In Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.758 of 1997, decided on 26th February, 2016, the principle of requirement of exercise of powers by the authorities within reasonable time was reiterated, to observe, "7. When there is a registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners and the same is not challenged in any civil proceedings, much less set aside, the revenue authority is bound by the same. It is trite principle that an entry in the revenue record has to follow to be mutated when the transaction is by a registered document. This Court in Javerbhai Savjibhai Patel vs. Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel & ors., (2005) 3 GLH 657 laid down such principle and further ruled in Nathubhai Meraman Darji vs. Special Secretary (Appeals), (1996) 3 GCD 691 that when the transaction is represented by a registered document, the revenue authority is required to take suo motu cognizance thereof for the purpose of mutation in the revenue record. It was held that question of following procedure of Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code would not arise when a transaction is by a registered deed. Such transaction cannot be disputed by the revenue authority unless the competent civil court annuls the same." "8. In the aforesaid view, therefore when there stands executed a registered sale deed in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners, the entry in the revenue record on the basis of such transaction has to mutate in the revenue records. In the aforesaid view, therefore when there stands executed a registered sale deed in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners, the entry in the revenue record on the basis of such transaction has to mutate in the revenue records. Even if the other considerations, though meritorious for setting aside the order, are set apart, on the aforesaid count alone, the order of the Deputy Collector directing cancellation of entries cannot be permitted to stand. The petitioners are within their right to continue with the entries in their name in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale transaction which is holding the field and is not sought to be set aside by the other side in any civil proceedings." 6. At the same time, it is well settled that the revenue entry is made in the revenue record only for the fiscal purpose and such mutation entry has fiscal value only. It does not decide the title related or ownership rights of the parties, for which the competent forum would be the civil court. When in the present case Special Civil Suit No.08 of 2013 is pending before the competent court, it has to be observed that Entry No.2394 which was mutated pursuant to the registered sale deed shall remain subject to outcome of the civil suit, in which, as it was stated, that the very sale deed is under challenge. 7. Subject to the aforesaid limited observations that Entry No.2394 shall abide by the outcome of the civil suit, impugned order dated 19th August, 2016 passed by respondent No.1 revisional authority as well as order dated 16th November, 2015 of the Collector, Navsari which was confirmed by the revisional authority, both are hereby set aside. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.