( 1 ) MR. B. G. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yatin Soni, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/3, Mr. A. Y. Kogje learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ? State.

( 2 ) BY the present writ application, petitioner seeks to challenge the order dtd. 29/8/1992 passed by the Deputy Collector in RTS Appeal No. 53 of 1992, order dtd. 24/2/1993 passed by the Collector in RTS Revision No. 91 of 1992 and order dtd. 23/5/1995 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department in Case No. SRD/b/hkp/43 of 1993.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that one Manibhai Hargovandas Suthar owned and possessed land bearing Survey Nos. 307, 308, 302 and 375 which were made a Block, numbered as No. 723, after coming into force Consolidation Act at village Khadana. The said Manibhai Hargovandas Suthar died on 15/8/1947 and was survived by his son ? Baldevbhai Manibhai Suthar and minor daughter Shantaben. On an application-cum-information given by Baldevbhai Manibhai Suthar to the Talati-cum-Mantri, Mutation Entry No. 2192 was made in favour of said Baldevbhai on 18/2/1948, undisputedly, the entry was certified.

( 4 ) BALDEVBHAI Manibhai Suthar died on 8/4/1990 leaving behind the present petitioner - Lalitaben, as his widow. On an information and application by her, her name was mutated in the record of rights vide Mutation Entry No. 958 on 15/2/1991 and the said entry was certified by the competent authority on 9/8/1991. After the said entry was certified, it appears that Shantaben sister of Baldevbhai and daughter of Manibhai either made some application to Talati-cum-Mantri or informed him that she was also entitled to mutation of her name, as she happened to be daughter of Manibhai Hargovandas Suthar. She also informed the Talati-cum-Mantri that the property was joint family property and under the Hindu Law, she could succeed to the father s property. On submission of Shantaben, Entry No. 1062 came to be made in favour of said Shantaben. The said entry was challenged by the petitioner before the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (?alt? for short), who, after hearing the parties, held that Shantaben, who had not raised any objection against Mutation Entry Nos. 958 and 2192 was not entitled to raise any objection. Shantaben, being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, filed the RTS Appeal No. 53 of 1992 in the Court of Deputy Collector, who, allowed the same and directed mutation of the name of Shantaben in the record of rights. As the revisions preferred to the Collector and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal proved futile, the petitioner is before this Court.

( 5 ) MR. PATEL, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, on the death of Manibhai, the succession opened in the year 1947. If that is the true factual position, the legal position would be that in the year 1947, the daughter would not be entitled to succeed to anything. His submission is that before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specially Sec. 6 or Sec. 8of the said Act, daughter was not entitled to any share in the property. His further submission is that the old, orthodox Hindu law clearly provided that a daughter would only be entitled to maintenance and nothing more and in case some property is given in possession of a female and she continues to be in possession upto the date when the Hindu Succession Act came into force, such person then only would become owner of the property. His submission is that in the year 1990 when Baldevbhai died, under sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, sister would not be a successor-cum-heir of the brother, if the sons, daughters and/or widow of the deceased survived the deceased. He submits that the entry made in favour of Shantaben is per-se illegal.

( 6 ) MR. YATIN Soni, learned counsel for Shantaben s legal representatives submits that Baldevbhai made misrepresentation in the year 1947/48 and did not bring correct picture to the notice of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document