IMPORTANT POINT
a) If a registered sale deed is executed by the holder of the land, it confers the right pertaining to the land in question in favour of the purchaser of the land and, therefore, the rights pertaining to the land in question in normal circumstances can be said to have been acquired over the land in question for which recording is required to be made in the revenue record. B) The revenue entries are having value only for fiscal purpose and more particularly for the purpose of recovery of revenue and it neither confers any right or title over the property, nor does it take away the right or title in the property which otherwise cannot be available under the law.C) Revenue authority exercising power under the Code to exercise power under the other enactment and to decide in respect to the breaches which are committed under the other enactment and thereby to uncertify the entry or to cancel the entry made in the revenue record.

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the legality of the order dated 30.1.2002/14.2.2002 passed by the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), respondent No.2 in RTS Revision Application No.44/2001, whereby the respondent No.2 has rejected the Revision Application filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 12.6.2001 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector in RTS Appeal No.70/1999.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, one Shantilal Jivandas Shah was the original owner of land bearing Survey No.117, admeasuring 4 Are 76 sq. mtrs., situated at Village Zankhvav, Taluka Mangrol, District Surat. After the death of the said Shantilal Jivandas Shah, his wife Shantaben and other heirs sold 224 sq. yards of land out of Survey No.117 to the petitioner by executing the sale deed dated 6.10.1976. The Entry No.778 with regard to the said sale was also made in the Revenue Record on 24.9.1986 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter on 27.6.1989, the Mamlatdar, Mangrol made the entry being No.891, mutating the name of Minaben, Widow of Rajendrakumar Shantilal Shah i.e. the respondent No.7 in respect the entire Survey No.117, including the part of the land sold to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by the said mutation of Entry No.891 made by the Mamlatdar, filed RTS Appeal No.7/1999 before the Deputy Collector Olpad, who vide the order dated 23.7.1999 partly cancelled the said Entry No.891 in respect of the part of the land sold to the petitioner (Annexure-D). The respondent No.7 Minaben, therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred RTS Appeal No.70/1999 before the Collector, who vide the order dated 12.6.2001 set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector by holding that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was in violation of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority Guardianship Act and also in violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Fragmentation Act”), as also in violation of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”). The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order of the Collector before the Respondent No.2 by filing RTS Revision Application No.44/2009, which came to be dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order dated 14.2.2002.

3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Counsel Ms. Shah for the petitioner that the Collector while exercising the appellate power under the provisions contained in the Bombay Land Revenue Code could not have assumed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and held that there was violation of the provisions contained in the Hindu Minority Guardianship Act or the Fragmentation Act, when there was no proceeding initiated by any authority under any of such statutes. She also submitted that the Mamlatdar had made the impugned Entry No.891 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.117, part of which was sold out to the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. However, the learned AGP Mr. Patel, relying upon the observations made by the Collector and SSRD in the impugned orders submitted that there was gross violation of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act in respect of which proceedings have been initiated, and that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the authorities, this Court may not interfere with the said orders, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Variava, learned Counsel for the respondent No.7, supporting the submissions made by the learned AGP, and further relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Saburbhai Hemabhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2000 (1) GLH 580 and in the case of Patel Jividas Trikamdas and Ors. Vs. Collector and Ors., reported in AIR 1997 Gujarat