JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

Heard Learned Advocate Mr.H.R.Prajapati For The petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent - State and its authorities and learned advocate Mr.S.L.Vaishya for the private respondents.

2. The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 28.06.2016, passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad, dismissing Revision Application No.18 of 2010 preferred by the petitioners, in turn, maintaining order of the Collector, Banaskanatha dated 17.04.2010.

3. The Dispute Was With Respect To Mutation Entry No.466 in respect of land bearing Survey Nos.79/2, 79/3, 79/6 and 79/7, situated at village Dharpada, Taluka Deesa. These lands stood in the joint names of Thakor Jhaverji Lakhaji, Kaluji Lakhaji and others. On the basis of a registered Sale Deed dated 23.03.1966, effected in favour of Thakor Gambhirji Madhuji - the petitioners herein, aforesaid entry was mutated in the revenue records on 25.08.1986. It appears that upon objection raised by respondent No.4 - Samraji Kaluji Thakor, the Deputy Collector, Deesa, passed order dated 30.07.2009 allowing the appeal and cancelling the said Mutation Entry No.466. The petitioners approached the Collector by filing Revision Application, which was dismissed on 17.04.2010. Filed thereafter was the Revision Application which culminated into the impugned order.

4. The Facts Show That Entry No.466 In Question was mutated on 25.08.1986 and the same was certified by Deputy Mamlatdar on 17.06.1988. It was mutated pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 23.03.1966. The objection to the said entry was taken by the private respondent in the year 2009 which was after a passage of 23 years. The Deputy Collector ignoring the objection of gross delay allowed the appeal and set aside the entry.

5. Delay Of 23 Years Could Be Said To Be Too Gross and unreasonable to be countenanced in law. The appeal could not have been entertained after such undue delay which was not explained. This ground alone disentitled the objector to sustain his objection. The objection was that the land was acquired in heirship and that the share of the objector was maintained therein. All these contentions are in the realm of civil rights, which could be gone into only by Civil Court. As far as revenue jurisdiction exercised by the authorities was concerned, the said issues and aspects were foreign to compass of their powers.

5.1 In addition to the delay aspect, the clinching consideration ought to be that Mutation Entry No.466 had the backing of registered Sale Deed dated 23.03.1966. Once the registered document is shown to be the basis for seeking entry in the revenue records, the entry could not have been refused. It had to figure in the revenue records. It is trite position of law that the designated officer is enjoined in law to give effect to the registered transaction by mutating the entry in the revenue record.

5.2 In Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P.O.A. Holder Ashok J. Patel Vs. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel, (2005) 3 GLR 2233, this Court held that Mutation Entry on the basis of the sale deed could not have been cancelled and the objection in that regard in respect of the validity of the document was a different aspect to be adjudicated by the competent authority, however the Entry must be registered once the registered document is produced.

5.3 In Balvantrai Ambaram Patel Vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.5464 of 2014 decided on 08th May, 2014, the very principle was stated in the following words,

"6. Therefore in all cases of claims for mutation based on a registered document, the competent officer has to be entered the name of the claimant owner right holder. The authority cannot insist for observing the requirements of Section 135D a priori and on that basis declined to enter the name in the revenue records. The designated officer in charge of the said function has no jurisdiction to disregard the legal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document