2021 Supreme(Guj) 162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Nirmalaben @ Nilaben Ratnasinh Chauhan W/O Takhatsinh Dansinh Thakore – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat Through The Secretary & other – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 13092 of 2018
Decided on : 24-02-2021

Point of Law: When a document of registered sale-deed is produced before the authority, the revenue authorities are bound to give effect to the same and are not required to decide the question of title.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 145 - Bombay Land Revenue Code - Section 211 - Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Sections 125L,125L(2),125L(3),133(2),135(D),135 – Rule 108 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 53(A),63 A,100 - Constitution of India ,1950 – Article 136,226,227 - Challenge – Sale Deed - Petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 29,863 Sq.Mtrs of Survey No.1098 and land admeasuring 8093 of Survey No.1175 situated at Village: Vandarvela, Taluka : Vasda, District : Navsari - On registration of the sale-deed the petitioner applied for mutation of entry, however, respondent No.5 objected to such mutation of entry on the ground that the respondent has instituted Special Civil Suit praying for specific performance of the agreement for sale in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Navsari against the original land owners with respect to land on the ground that there was an agreement for sale in favour of the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 was in possession of the land in question - Mamlatdar allowed the objection by order and did not certify the entry no.4862 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, preferred RTS Appeal No.56 of 2016 before the Deputy Collector which was also rejected by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 20th April, 2017 – whether the Power of Attorney holder can execute the sale deed or not - whether such an enquiry is required to be conducted by Mamlatdar in an R.T.S. proceeding or not. - Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by following the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely to be affected by any order that may be passed

Finding of the court: Court opinion that Commissioner (exercising the revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code) should not have gone into the question of title. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant - It is well settled that revenue records confer no title on the party. It has been recently held by this Court. that such entries are relevant only for “fiscal purpose” and substantive rights of title and of ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only by a competent civil court in appropriate proceedings.It is clear from the record that grievance of Respondent 2 daughter, related to mutation entry. If authorities under the Tenancy Act felt that the action was in consonance with law, it could have retained the entry. The inquiry, however, was limited to the entry in the revenue records and nothing more. It had no bearing whatsoever as to the right of ownership, inheritance or title to the property. In our opinion, therefore, neither the authorities under the Tenancy Act nor the High Court could have entered into the question of ownership, title or inheritance in the present proceedings and they ought to have decided the controversy limited to mutation entry in the revenue records - revenue authorities are invested with limited powers under Sec. 135 and they cannot assume to themselves certain powers conferred on them by law and they cannot assume jurisdiction of Civil Court. The revenue authorities cannot decide validity of transaction on touchstone of statutory provision occurring in some enactment and that they cannot decide disputed question of title. In fact, this Court has gone to the extent that when a dispute as to the title arises the parties have to go to the competent Civil Court.

Result: Petition allowed