Point of Law: When the mortgage deed, was executed in favour of Sagar Gachha Committee, with possession and it after taking approval of the Charity Commissioner, executed the sale-deed in favour of Nabibhai Dadbhai, there was no reason available to the Deputy Mamlatdar, to have raised an objection of the endorsement of the mortgage in the column of “other rights”.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SSRD’); the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad; and the order dated 28.10.2013 of the Deputy Collector, Sanand by which the order dated 10.8.2011 of the mamlatdar, cancelling the entry no.24519 dated 13.04.2011, was confirmed.

2. The facts of the case are, as under:

2.1 The petitioner, in the year 2007-2008, showed her interest in purchasing the land bearing survey no.1932/2, admeasuring 11,534 sq.mtrs situated at Sanand, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘land in question’) and accordingly, executed a sale-deed. Apropos which, the petitioner applied for mutation of her name in the revenue record. The entry no.21336 dated 21.03.2018, came to be mutate, however, the same was not certified by the Mamlatdar vide order dated 15.06.2008 on the ground that supporting documents of petitioner being an agriculturist are not produced.

2.2 It is, thereafter, certain documents were provided and entry no.23735 dated 31.08.2010, came to be mutated in the village form no.VI; however, the same came to be cancelled on 23.11.2010, considering the existing entry in the column of other rights. Thereafter, another entry no.24519 dated 13.04.2011, came to be mutated in the revenue record, which was not certified by the Mamlatdar on the ground that there is a mortgage recorded in the column of “other rights” and there were some discrepancies in the revenue record.

2.3 The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Sanand. In the appeal, it was the case of the petitioner that there is no such information available in 7/12 form in the column of other rights as regards the mortgage; however, the details of the mortgager were recorded in the 7/12 form on 17.08.2011. Further, the Deputy Mamlatdar has used contradictory endorsements such as “cancelled” and “certified”, which are illegal. So far as the aspect of mortgage in the column of “other rights” is concerned, it has been stated that the land belonged to one Jiitabhai Sendhabhai, who has mortgaged his land before 74 years; however, the owner of the land did not get the mortgage released within the time limit and therefore, the right of the erstwhile owner stood extinguished. Moreover, Nabibhai Dadbhai had purchased the land and thereafter the Respondent No. 7, that is, Devendrasinh Chhatrasinh Vaghela and one another purchased the land from Nabibhai Dadbhai and from Respondent No.7 it is the petitioner who has purchased the land.

2.4 The Deputy Collector held that no steps have been taken for removal of the mortgage, as the name of the mortgager still exists in the revenue record, and the appeal came to be rejected by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 28.10.2013. The order of the Deputy Collector was challenged before the District Collector, who, vide order dated 27.10.2014 dismissed the revision. The order of the Collector was challenged before the SSRD, who, while grating stay was prima facie of the opinion that the order is defective considering the facts namely, (i) entry no.9285 dated 15.10.1965 was certified on the basis of registered sale-deed; (ii) the land was sold again, for which, entry no.15311 dated 26.03.1993 was mutated and certified and (iii) entry no.24519, which was recorded on the basis registered sale-deed, has been rejected on the ground of endorsement of mortgage in the column of “other rights”.

2.5 The SSRD, after hearing the parties, has passed the order dated 25.09.2017, rejecting the revision. The aspect of recording of mortgaged in the column of “other rights”, weighed with the SSRD. All the three authorities had observed that though the entry has been mutated based on registered mortgage deed; however, registered deed releasing the mortgage is not