Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
V.M. PANCHOLI, J.
Natvarlal Shivlal Thakkar - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 16482 of 2019
Decided On : 15-10-2019
Civil Law – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 – Rule 2A – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Specific performance and other declaration in respect of the land – Unregistered agreement to sale – Petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 - SSRD allowing the Revision Application filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that petitioner has challenged the mutation entry after a period of nine years – case of the petitioner is on the basis of the unregistered agreement to sale executed by the original land owner in his favour – Whereas entries in question have been mutated by the revenue authority on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by concerned land owner initially in favour of the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 has executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 3 – Further, civil suit is already filed by petitioner against original land owners in the year 1996 and the petitioner has also challenged the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 by filing Special Civil Suit before the concerned civil court, however till date, no relief is granted in favour of the petitioner in the civil suit filed in the year 2009 – Held, When the respondent-SSRD has considered the aforesaid relevant aspects and passed the impugned order, by which, the orders passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the Collector are set aside, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the respondent no. 1 – When the Collector has remanded the matter back to Deputy Collector for considering certain aspects and when Deputy Collector in remand proceedings, considered the said aspects only and passed an order in favour of petitioner, respondent-SSRD could not have gone beyond order of remand passed by Collector, is misconceived – As discussed hereinabove, conduct of petitioner is also required to be considered while granting relief in favour of present petitioner. The disputed entry mutated in the revenue record in the year 2001 was challenged in the year 2012 and prior to that, in year 2009, petitioner filed civil suit challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 – At that stage also, he had not challenged mutation entry by filing RTS Appeal and, therefore, this conduct of the petitioner is required to be considered – Further for alleged breach of the order of injunction passed by concerned civil court, till date, the petitioner has not filed an application under order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 nor any proceeding under provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the original land owner or present respondent nos. 2 and 3. Further respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not party defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner in the year 1996 and even in the year 2009, when petitioner has filed civil suit against respondent nos. 2 and 3, till date, no relief is granted by the civil court in favour of the petitioner. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes and rights of parties can be determined by the civil court. Thus in the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the contention taken by petitioner cannot be accepted – Petition is dismissed. (Paras 24 and 25)
JUDGMENT :
V.M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the respondent no. 1 - SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/AMD/70/2019.
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani for respondent no. 1 and learned advocate, Mr. Viral Shah for the respondent no. 3.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under,
3.2. Along with the plaint, an application, Exh. 5 for injunction was also filed by the plaintiffs, which came to be allowed by the concerned civil court vide order dated 11.06.1997 and thereby granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Against the said order granting injunction, the respondent no. 9 herein preferred Appeal before the District Court, however, the said Appeal came to be dismissed by the concerned District court vide order dated 31.08.2006.
3.3. It is further stated that though the injunction was granted by the concerned civil court in favour of the petitioner and other plaintiffs, the respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein had executed sale deeds in favour of the respondent no. 2 on 18.02.1992 and 21.05.1998. Pursuant to the execution of the said sale deed, Entry Nos. 6861 and 9862 came to be mutated in the revenue record.
3.4. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the respondent no. 2 executed sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 3 on 12.07.2004 and, therefore, Entry No. 7237 was mutated in the revenue record on 02.04.2005.
3.5. It is stated that when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid entries mutated in the revenue record, he filed RTS Appeal No. 53-54/2012 before the Deputy Collector. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed Special Civil Suit No. 307/2009 before the concerned civil court challenging the execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
3.6. The Deputy Collector, vide order dated 21.10.2013, rejected the Appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Revision Application before the Collector. The Collector, by an order dated 19.03.2015, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector with a direction to take decision in accordance with law and decide as to whether there is any breach of the order of the injunction or not. It is stated that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed Revision Application before the respondent-SSRD challenging the order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Collector. However during the pendency of the said Revision Application, the Deputy Collector passed an order on 02.07.2016 and held that the execution of the sale deed is in breach of the order of the competent court and, therefore, mutation entries cannot be posted in the revenue record. The respondent nos. 2 and 3, therefore, challenged the said order by fling Revision Application No. 826/2016 before the Collector.
3.7. In the meantime, the respondent-SSRD disposed of the Revision Application filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the said Revision Application has become infructuous. The respondent nos. 2 and 3, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 17084/2017 before this Court. Initially, this Court granted stay in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, however, when the Civil Application was filed for vacating the interim relief, the said petition was withdrawn by
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
