Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 647 (GUJ)

JASWANTBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-04-25

N.V.ANJARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhirendra Mehta for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent-State and its authorities and learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi for the private respondents. 2. The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 20/21.01.2016, passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad. Thereby the said revisional authority dismissed Revision Application No.82 of 2006 of the petitioner herein, consequently confirming order dated 23.06.2006 of the Collector, Surat and further observed that the outcome of the Civil Suit shall bind the parties. 3. The dispute dealt with by the revenue authorities was with regard to Revenue Entry No.11746. This Mutation Entry was entered in the revenue records on 19.11.2003. It was in respect of land bearing Survey No.478, 507, Block No.435 situated at village Variyav, Taluka Choryasi, Surat, belonging to one Ramjibhai Durlabhbhai, who died on 23.10.2003. Said Ramjibhai had executed a registered Will No.1223 on 01.07.1992 in respect of the said land. By the said Will, the land was given to the present petitioner, who happened to be the nephew of the deceased Ramjibhai. 3.1 It appears that the Mamlatdar, Choryasi, cancelled the said Mutation Entry No.11746 upon objection raised by private respondents - the heirs of deceased Ramjibhai. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector on 24.08.2004 against the order of the Mamlatdar cancelling the entry. This appeal was rejected by the Deputy Collector on 28.09.2005. Thereafter further revision/appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector on 22.11.2005. The Collector, Surat, dismissed the appeal on 23.06.2006. Thereafter, came to be filed the Revision Application culminating into the impugned order. 3.2 It was stated that the respondents have instituted Regular Civil Suit No.586 of 2005 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat, in respect of subjectmatter land, which is pending. 4. The objection taken against the Entry was in respect of the validity of the Will and further on the ground that the land was given to the deceased Ramjibhai as new tenure land, therefore, it could not have been subjected to making of Will. This aspect was also related to questioning on the Will. There is no gainsaying that validity of Will is under challenge before the Civil Court. 5. This aspect was also related to questioning on the Will. There is no gainsaying that validity of Will is under challenge before the Civil Court. 5. Revenue Entry No.11746 which was mutated on the basis of the Will could not be said to have been entered erroneously inasmuch as it was based on the registered Will. When a registered transaction takes place, it has to be reflected in the revenue records. The Second Proviso to Section 135C of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, enjoins the revenue authority to give effect to any registered transaction by reflecting the same in the revenue records in form of a revenue entry. 5.1 Although the revisional authority has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect where the Will was a registered Will and the question of validity thereof was in the adjudicatory domain of the Civil Court and further that the Civil Suit is instituted and pending in that regard, still however the revisional authority concluded that the Collector's order cancelling Entry No.11746 was proper. 5.2 Looking to the above principle that when there is a registered transaction, entry reflecting the same has to be mutated in the revenue records, the revisional authority committed a manifest error of law in confirming the order of the Collector and endorsing to the cancellation of the Mutation Entry in question. 5.3 This Court has held in Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P.O.A. Holder Ashok J. Patel Vs. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel, (2005) 3 GLR 2233 , as also in Balvantrai Ambaram Patel Vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.5464 of 2014 decided on 08th May, 2014 as well as in Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.758 of 1997, decided on 26th February, 2016, that when there is a registered Sale Deed, Mutation Entry ought to have been recorded. 5.4 The principle also applies to a case where a registered Will is executed and on the basis of such registered document, the Mutation Entry is made. 5.5 At the same time, it is equally wellsettled decision that a Mutation Entry stands in the revenue records only for fiscal purpose. The title related rights and the ownership incidents in relation to the property have to be decided after their adjudication by the Civil Court. 5.5 At the same time, it is equally wellsettled decision that a Mutation Entry stands in the revenue records only for fiscal purpose. The title related rights and the ownership incidents in relation to the property have to be decided after their adjudication by the Civil Court. As far as the present challenge is concerned, Regular Civil Suit No.586 of 2005 is pending before the competent Court at Surat. Therefore, while upholding the Entry made on the basis of the registered Will, it has to be clarified that the same shall remain subject to outcome of the said Civil Suit. 6. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, the impugned order dated 20/21.01.2016 of the revisional authority - respondent No.1 herein as well as order dated 23.06.2006 of the Collector, Ahmedabad, both are liable to be set aside. They are accordingly set aside subject to observation that Entry No.11746 shall abide by the outcome of Regular Civil Suit No.586 of 2005 pending before the competent Court of Surat. 7. The petition stands allowed subject to operation of the aforesaid observation.