Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.R.Shah
GOVINDJI CHHABAJI - Appellant
Versus
PRANT OFFICER - Respondent
S.C.A.10638 of 1993
Decided On : 03/31/2004
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Bombay Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act – Bombay Land Revenue Rules – Rule 108 – Jurisdiction – Cancellation of Entry no – Challenging judgment and order passed by Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department dismissing Revision Application and confirming judgment and order passed by Collector, has confirmed the judgment and order passed by Deputy Collector in cancelling Entry No – Petitioners contended that while exercising powers by Deputy Collector under Rule 108 of Bombay Land Revenue Rules, Revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the entry on assumption that there is a breach of provisions of any other Statute. For that proposition of law – Held, It is well settled that the Entries made in the Revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title – As held by the aforesaid two Judgments, such mutations have to follow either document of title or order passed by the competent authorities under special enactment – Independently, the Revenue authorities cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transactions recorded in the entries are against the provisions of particular enactment – Similarly, the Revenue authorities also while exercising the power under Rule 108 of Rules cannot pass an order with regard to imposing the penalty and/or returning possession of the land in question for breach of the provisions of any other abovesaid enactments and in the present case Section 9 of the said Act. Under the circumstances, the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector in cancelling the Entry No – Petition is allowed. (Para 9)
( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are owners of block No. 431 situated at Village Kujad, Taluka Dascroi, have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 22. 9. 1993 passed by the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, dismissing Revision Application and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad, dated 30th December 1988 by which the Collector, Ahmedabad, has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam dated 20th August 1988 in cancelling the Entry No. 1729.
( 2 ) THE petitioners had purchased the land bearing block No. 431 situated in Village Kujad, Taluka-Dascroi by registered Sale Deed from the respondent No. 4 herein and names of the petitioners were entered into the Record of Rights vide Entry No. 1729 dated 13th March 1987 which was certified on 2. 5. 1987. That the said Entry No. 1729 dated 13th March 1987 which was certified on 2. 5. 1987 came to be reviewed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant exercising suo motu powers on the ground that there is breach of provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act ("the Act" for short ). That the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant by his judgment and order dated 20th August 1988 not only quashed and set aside the entry No. 1729 but also passed an order of imposing the penalty under Section 9 of the Act and further directed to return possession of the land in question.
( 3 ) THAT being aggrieved and disssatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant dated 20th August 1988 passed in Review Case No. 207 of 1988 the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector, Ahmedabad which was numbered as Appeal No. 68 of 1989 and the District Collector, Ahmedabad, by his judgment and order dated 30th December 1991 dismissed the said review application confirming the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant dated 20th August 1988.
( 4 ) THAT being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad dated 30th December 1991 dismissing the said Revision Application and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, Ahmedabad dated 20th August 1988 in cancelling the Entry No. 1729 and in imposing the penalty under Section 9 of the said Act and directing to return possession of the land in question, the petitioners preferred Revision Application before the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat which was numbered as Revision Application No. 14 of 1992 and the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat by his judgment and order dated 21. 9. 1993 dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the judgment and order passed by both the authorities below.
( 5 ) THAT being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 22. 9. 1993 passed by the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, passed in Revision Application No. 14 of 1992 in dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad, dated 30th December 1988 and also the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant dated 20th August 1988 in cancelling the Entry No. 1729 and imposing the penalty under Section 9 of the Act and directing to return possession of the land in question, the present Special Civil Application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
( 6 ) MS. Archana Singh, appearing for Ms. Sudha Gangwar, ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has mainly contended that while exercising powers by the Deputy Collector under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, the Revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the entry on the assumption that there is a breach of pro
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
