Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 124 (GUJ)

Jiviben W. v. State of Gujarat

2019-02-13

A.J.DESAI

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 13.08.2018 passed in Revision Application No.MVV/HAKAP/VDD/223/2018 by the respondent SSRD (at ANNEXURE-K hereto); (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, execution and implementation of the impugned order dated 13.08.2018 passed in Revision Application No.MVV/HAKAP/VDD/223/2018 by the respondent - SSRD (at ANNEXURE-K hereto) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status-quo qua the lands in question;" 2. The case put forward by the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of deceased Somabhai Mangalbhai Bhoi. That their Grandfather, namely, Mangalbhai Jivabhai Bhoi was holder and occupier of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.551/A situated at village Sherkhi, Tal. And Dist. Vadodara (Rural). The father of the petitioner i.e. Somabhai expired on 15.6.2002 whereas grandfather of the petitioners i.e. Mangalbhai Jivabhai Bhoi expired on 27.12.2002. Though the father of the petitioners was one of the children of Mangalabhai, pedigree was prepared and certified by Talati in the year 2012, wherein the name of Somabhai was not mentioned. 3. An entry being Entry No.10320 came to be mutated on 14.5.2012 with regard to death of Mangalbhai and names of three persons, namely, Chanchalben Mangalbhai Bhoi, Ramabhai Mangalbhai Bhoi and Bhikhiben Mangalbhai Bhoi were mutated with regard to the land in question. The said Entry came to be certified on 14.9.2012. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that before the said Entry No.10320 was certified, the property was sold by the respondent Nos.6.1 and 6.2 to respondent Nos.7 and 8 on 26.7.2012. Accordingly, Entry No.10474 was mutated on 14.09.2012. The said entry was certified on 25.11.2012 by the competent Revenue Officer. 5. The petitioner having come to know about the sale of the land in question, filed Regular Civil Suit No.541 of 2013 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Vadodara. Simultaneously, the petitioners also challenged both the entries i.e. Entry No.10320 and 10474 before the revenue authorities. 6. 5. The petitioner having come to know about the sale of the land in question, filed Regular Civil Suit No.541 of 2013 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Vadodara. Simultaneously, the petitioners also challenged both the entries i.e. Entry No.10320 and 10474 before the revenue authorities. 6. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 8.5.2015 rejected the appeal of the petitioners. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No.365 of 2015 and the Collector vide order dated 30.6.2017 allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside Entry Nos.10320 and 10474. Against the said order, the respondent Nos.7 and 8 preferred Revision Application No.223 of 2017 and the learned SSRD allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the order dated 30.6.2017 of the Collector. Hence the present petition. 7. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the private respondents have deliberately not entered the name of the father of the petitioners in the pedigree since he had expired prior to the death of the grandfather of the petitioners. He would further submit that they have right and share in the land in question for which suit has already been filed. He would submit that during the pendency of the tenancy proceedings, the respondent Nos.6.1 and 6.2 have deliberately sold the land in question to respondent Nos.7 and 8 so that the petitioners may not get any share in the land in question. By taking me through the impugned order, he would submit that the revisional authority has committed an error in allowing the revision application filed by the private respondents No.7 and 8 since the Collector has appropriately dealt with the case on hand. He, therefore, would submit that the present petition be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 by taking me through the impugned order passed by the revisional authority would submit that the authorities have examined several facts about the entries mutated with regard to the sale which have taken place between respondent Nos.6.1 and 6.2 and respondent Nos.7 and 8. It has been observed in the order that the land in question was purchased by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 by publishing public notice. It has been observed in the order that the land in question was purchased by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 by publishing public notice. When the public notice with regard to the intention of purchasing the land in question was published in the newspaper, the petitioners have not raised any objection. He would further submit that even otherwise, it has been observed that the entries which have been made will be subject to outcome of the civil proceedings which is pending before the competent Civil Court. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and gone through the impugned order passed by the revisional authority. An Entry being Entry No.10320 came to be mutated on 14.5.2012 with regard to death of Mangalbhai and names of three persons, namely, Chanchalben Mangalbhai Bhoi, Ramabhai Mangalbhai Bhoi and Bhikhiben Mangalbhai Bhoi were mutated with regard to the land in question. The said Entry came to be certified on 14.9.2012. However, the said Entry was not mutated earlier on the ground that some claim was made by Motibhai claiming right over the property as tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. However, the said proceedings were dismissed on 3.2.2012 by the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.6.1 and 6.2 sold the land in question by registered Sale Deed on 26.7.2012 and Entry No. 10474 was certified on 25.11.2012. 10. I have also gone through the plaint of Regular Civil Suit No.541 of 2013 filed by the petitioners. The petitioners have requested the Civil Court to pass a decree of partition and has also challenged the Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8. It is pertinent to note here that the revisional authority has clearly held in the impugned order that entries made in the revenue record shall be subject to decision of the Civil Court. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned SSRD. Hence, the present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.