Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Hardik Sunilbhai Agrawal – Petitioner
Versus
Prant Officer, Kadi – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3038 Of 2023 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3039 Of 2023 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3040 Of 2023
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Mutation Entry - Disputed Cases - Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, Section 135D - The court considered the controversy of mutation entry in revenue records based on objections raised by a social worker and RTI activist. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. It held that 'any person' in Section 135D(3) should be interpreted narrowly, allowing only interested parties to raise objections. The court also emphasized that the authorities should not certify the entry if it violates any provisions of the law and should refer such objections to the competent authority for further action. The impugned notices were quashed and set aside, allowing the authorities to refer the objections to the competent authority for appropriate proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the notice issued by the respondent-Authorities registering disputed cases for mutation of entry in revenue records based on objections raised by a social worker and RTI activist. The petitioner argued that the objections raised by the respondent No.4 were not valid as the respondent had no interest in the land. The respondent-Authorities had entered the objections in the Register of Disputed Cases, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections raised by the respondent No.4 were not justified and the authorities should not have taken cognizance of the objections. It held that 'any person' in Section 135D(3) should be interpreted narrowly, allowing only interested parties to raise objections. The court also emphasized that the authorities should not certify the entry if it violates any provisions of the law and should refer such objections to the competent authority for further action.
Issues: The main issue was whether 'any person' in Section 135D(3) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 should be interpreted narrowly, allowing only interested parties to raise objections for mutation entry in revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of 'any person' in Section 135D(3) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, emphasizing that it should be narrowly construed to allow only interested parties to raise objections. The court also highlighted the authorities' duty to not certify the entry if it violates any provisions of the law and to refer such objections to the competent authority for further action.
Final Decision: The impugned notices issued by the respondent-Authority were quashed and set aside, allowing the authorities to refer the objections raised by the respondent No.4 to the competent authority for appropriate proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sunil S. Joshi for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar for the respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent No.5.
1.1. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass and with the consent of learned advocates, these petitions arising out of common issue of initiation of proceedings of disputed cases for mutation of entry in revenue record, are heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
3.1. The petitioner of each petition has challenged the notice issued by the respondent- Authorities registering the disputed case on the basis of objection raised by respondent No.4 with regard to the mutation of the entry to be certified on the basis of the registered saledeed executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.3 for sale of respective parcel of land.
3.2. Brief facts of individual petitions are as under :
3.2.1. In Special Civil Application No.3038 of 2023, it is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Survey No.1445 admeasuring 2449 Sq.Mtrs was owned and possessed by the petitioner. On 13.12.2022, by a registered sale-deed bearing Registration No.19905/2022, the petitioner sold the same to the respondent No.3. The aforesaid sale transaction was mutated in Village Form No.6 of the said land vide M.E.No.16226 dated 13.12.2022. An RTI activist, lodged a written objection dated 23.12.2022, opposing certification of said M.E.No.16226 on the ground that the petitioner herein is not an agriculturist. Pursuant to the written objections lodged by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.1 and/or respondent No.2 appears to have entered the particulars of the said objections in the Register of Disputed Cases and same is registered as RTS/Takrari Case No.476/2022 and issued a notice to the petitioner in respect of the dispute raised by the respondent No.4.
3.2.2. In Special Civil Application No.3039 of 2023, it is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Survey No.1446 admeasuring 5804 Sq.Mtrs was owned and possessed by the petitioner. On 13.12.2022, by a registered sale-deed bearing Registration No.19902/2022, the petitioner sold the same to the respondent No.3. The aforesaid sale transaction was mutated in Village Form No.6 of the said land vide M.E.No.16224 dated 13.12.2022. An RTI activist, lodged a written objection dated 23.12.2022, opposing certification of said M.E.No.16224 on the ground that the petitioner herein is not an agriculturist. Pursuant to the written objections lodged by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.1 and/or respondent No.2 appears to have entered the particulars of the said objections in the Register of Disputed Cases and same is registered as RTS/Takrari Case No.477/2022 and issued a notice to the petitioner in respect of the dispute raised by the respondent No.4.
3.2.3. In Special Civil Application No.3040 of 2023, it is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Survey No.1444 admeasuring 4544 Sq.Mtrs was owned and possessed by the petitioner. On 13.12.2022, by a registered sale-deed bearing Registration No.19904/2022, the petitioner sold the same to the respondent No.3. The aforesaid sale transaction was mutated in Village Form No.6 of the said land vide M.E.No.16225 dated 13.12.2022. An RTI activist, lodged a written objection dated 23.12.2022, opposing certification of said M.E.No.16225 on the ground that the petitioner herein is not an agriculturist. Pursuant to the written objections lodged by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.1 and/or respondent No.2 appears to have entered the particulars of the said objections in the Register of Disputed Cases and same is registered as RTS/Takrari Case No.478/2022 and issued a notice to the petitioner in respect of the dispute raised by the resp
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
