Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 4 (GUJ)

Babubhai Makanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2019-01-07

A.C.RAO, J.B.PARDIWALA

body2019
ORDER : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. This Appeal is at the instance of the original petitioners and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05/07/2016 in the Special Civil Application No.511 of 2016. By the said judgment and order the learned Single Judge thought fit to reject the petition filed by the appellants herein. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellants - original petitioners are here before this Court with this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. It appears from the material on record that the dispute between the parties is one with regard to mutation of entries in the record of rights. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the petition, has observed as under: "The petitioners' claimed their right as one of the heirs of the land in question bearing survey No. 189/5 admeasuring 2 Acres and 30 Gunthas situated at Village Hajira, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat. It appears from the record that entry no.667 dated 2.9.1974 and entry no.843 dated 22.12.1980 were challenged by the present petitioner by way of an appeal as pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the year 2008 which culminated into the order dated 17.1.2012 being Appeal no.370 of 2008. It further appears that thereafter, the petitioners claiming right against the private respondents herein have also filed Civil Suit no.104 of 2009. The authorities below have came to the conclusion that the entry in name of the petitioner may be decided as and when the rights are crystallized in the Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Court. 4. On perusal of the aforesaid view taken by both the authorities and more particularly reiterated by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in its impugned order, it clearly appears that both the authorities have followed the binding decisions of this Court in the cases of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel v. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel & Ors., 2005 (3) GLR 2233 and Chhimiben Wd/o Hirabhai Gopalbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2006 (3) GLR 2455 . 5. Considering the aforesaid therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. reported in 2006 (3) GLR 2455 . 5. Considering the aforesaid therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners has further pointed out that there is a clear discrepancy in the copy of the family tree and the same is not appreciated by the authorities. However, the said issue is also subject matter of the Suit being Civil Suit no.109 of 2015 which is also not denied by the learned advocate for the petitioners. However, considering the fact that the said issue is pending since 2009, the Trial Court is hereby directed to give priority to the said suit and hear all the parties and dispose of the said Suit by 31.12.2016 without in any manner being influenced by the impugned order as well as the present order." 3. Mr. Viral K. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants makes a statement that since a long period of time the clients have taken back the papers from him. As on date, he has no further instructions in the matter. In such circumstances, we are relieving Mr. Shah of his obligation to appear in this Appeal on behalf of the appellants. The appellants have not taken any steps to engage another advocate. 4. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the other material on record, we do not find any error not to speak of any error of law said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the Special Civil Application No.511 of 2016. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration two relevant aspects of the matter, first that, the dispute is with regard to mutation of entries, and secondly, the pendency of the Civil Suit No.104 of 2009 filed by the appellants. The learned Single Judge is justified in taking the view that the mutation of entries in the record of rights does not confer any right, title or interest in the property in question. The revenue entries in the record of rights are meant only for fiscal purpose. The learned Single Judge is justified in taking the view that the mutation of entries in the record of rights does not confer any right, title or interest in the property in question. The revenue entries in the record of rights are meant only for fiscal purpose. Besides the same, the final rights of the parties with regard to the land in question will be decided by the Civil Court in the Civil Suit No.104 of 2009. Ultimately, subject to the final outcome of the Civil Suit No.104 of 2009 the record of rights will have to be corrected. At this stage, we see no good reason to disturb the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. In view of the above, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. 6. As the main Appeal is disposed of, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.