Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 383
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
SHANTABEN W/O KARSHANDAS JATANIA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 4406 of 2016, Civil Application No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 08-04-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: SANGEETA PAHWA.
For the Respondents: A.S. TIMBALIA, DHWANI TRIPATHI.
Breach of principles of natural justice in cancellation of mutation entries without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Headnote:
Mutation Entry - Land Dispute - Gujarat Land Revenue Rules - Rule 108(5) - Section 135-D - The court discussed the breach of principles of natural justice by the Deputy Collector in cancelling the revenue entries without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Collector to decide afresh the appeal after affording appropriate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an agriculturist and owner of a land, sought relief against the cancellation of mutation entries by the Deputy Collector without providing an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner contended that the exercise by the revenue authorities was improper and in breach of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector was in clear breach of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the Deputy Collector to re-hear the appeal afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
Issues: Breach of principles of natural justice, cancellation of mutation entries without opportunity of being heard, alternative remedy available to challenge the order
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law due to the clear breach of principles of natural justice by the Deputy Collector. The availability of an alternative remedy to challenge the order before appropriate authority was not accepted by the court in light of the breach of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector was quashed and set aside, and the Mutation Entry made by the Mamlatdar was also quashed and set aside. The Deputy Collector was directed to re-hear the appeal afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
JUDGMENT :
A.P. THAKER, J.
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.9.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhandhuka Prant (Respondent No. 2), Ahmedabad, cancelling mutation entry Nos. 2251, 2566, 3444 and 3538, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20.9.2014 made by respondent No. 2 and the consequential mutation entry no. 4484 dated 12.11.2014, made by respondent No. 3, as being unjust, unreasonable, in violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 20.9.2014 made by respondent No. 2 and also the mutation entry No. 4484 dated 12.11.2014 made by respondent No. 3, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.
2. The Brief facts, as emerged from the record of the petition, are as under:
2.1 The petitioner is an agriculturist and the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 1232 admeasuring hectare 1-16-35 situated at Village Bajarda, Taluka and District Ahmedabad. The subject land was originally owned by respondent No. 4-Sugraben Jafarhusen, who purchased the subject land from Amirbhai Ahmedbhai Sanghariyat vide sale deed dated 16.2.1998. A mutation Entry No. 2251 came to be recorded in the revenue records and was certified on 2.5.1998. Upon demise of Sugraben Jafarhusen, names of her legal heirs came to be mutated in the revenue records vide Mutation Entry No. 2566 and was duly certified. The petitioner has purchased the land from legal heirs of deceased Sugraben Jafarhusen by registered sale deed dated 19.2.2010 and mutation entry was recorded vide Entry No. 3444, which came to be certified by the Mamlatdar, Dhandhuka on 15.6.2010. Vide Entry No. 3538, the names of the family members of the petitioner were also recorded in the revenue records, which came to be certified on 23.9.2010.
2.2 Respondent No. 5 filed an Appeal being RTS Appeal No. 93/2011 under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules before the Deputy Collector, Dholka requesting to cancel all the above referred entries viz. Entry Nos. 2251, 2566, 3444 and 3538 on the ground that Sugraben Jafarhusen was an agriculturist. In the said Appeal, no notice was issued to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of being heard, the Deputy Collector vide impugned order cancelled all the entries and on that basis, Mamlatdar has also recorded Entry No. 4484 dated 20.9.2014, which came to be certified on 12.11.2014. According to the petitioners, they were not served with Notice under Section 135-D of the Code before certifying this entry. It is also contended that though petitioners were in possession and petitioner was named as Opponent No. 11 in the RTS Appeal, no notice was issued and no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and thus impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector is in breach of principles of natural justice. It is also contended that on the basis of the impugned order, the Entry No. 4484 made by the Mamlatdar is also made without providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and no Notice under Section 135-D was issued before making such entry in the revenue records. Thus, being aggrieved by this exercise, on the part of the Revenue authorities, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Heard Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned advocate for the respondent State. Perused the materials placed on record. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the respondent No. 5.
4. Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advoca
