Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
RAGHUBHAI NAVGHANBHAI BHARWAD – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 3571 of 2021, Civil Application (Fixing Date of Early Hearing) No. 1 of 2023
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: SATYAM Y. CHHAYA.
For the Respondents: DHAWAN JAYSWAL, JINESH H. KAPADIA.
Arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities in not considering the sale deed and the correct land measurement.
Headnote:
Error in Mutation Entry - Land Measurement Discrepancy - Entry No. 1741 - Summary: The court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the authorities as the Entry No. 1741 recorded an incorrect measurement of the land purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer an application for correcting the entry to show the correct measurement as 2565 sq.mtrs instead of 2635 sq.mtrs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No. 155 of 2019 regarding the mutation of Entry No. 1741 in the revenue records, which incorrectly stated the measurement of the land purchased by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the authorities due to the incorrect measurement recorded in Entry No. 1741 and granted the petitioner liberty to correct the entry.
Issues: Discrepancy in land measurement, arbitrary jurisdiction by the authorities
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the authorities had exercised arbitrary jurisdiction by not considering the sale deed and the measurement stated therein, leading to the incorrect conclusion that there were two sale deeds for the same land.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute, quashed the orders passed by the authorities, and granted the petitioner liberty to correct the mutation entry for the land measurement discrepancy.
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondents No. 1-6 and learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia for respondent No. 8. None appears for respondent No. 7.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Kapadia waives service for respondent No. 8.
3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged orders passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) [‘SSRD’ for short] in Revision Application No. 155 of 2019 with regard to Entry No. 1741 mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the Sale Deed No. 2943 executed in favour of the petitioner by the original land owners for the land admeasuring 2565 sq.mtrs situated at Survey No. 20 Paiki bearing Khata No. 203 at Village-Valetva, Tal. Nadiyad, District-Kheda.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
4.1 Smt. Punjiben Shankarbhai Bavabhai and Mangalbhai Babubhai Parmar were holding a land admeasuring 5300 sq.mtrs situated at Revenue Survey No. 20 Paiki of Village Valetva, Dist. Kheda.
4.2 Out of the said 5300 sq.mtrs of land, 2635 sq.mtrs of land was sold to Patel Ashwinbhai Bhailalbhai-respondent No. 8 herein vide registered sale deed No. 1593 dated 12.01.2009 and Entry No. 1615 was mutated in that respect. However, when the said Entry was cancelled, present respondent No. 8 approached Deputy Collector, Nadiad, who by order dated 18.08.2017, has certified the said entry.
4.3 Further, the original owners have donated 100 sq.mtrs of land to the Gram Panchayat out of remaining 2665 sq.mtrs of land and Entry No. 1063 was mutated to that effect.
4.4 The original owners have thereafter sold the remaining land admeasuring 2565 sq.mtrs to the present petitioner by a registered sale deed No. 2943 dated 11.05.2015. Entry No. 1741 was mutated giving effect of the sale transaction. However, while certifying the Entry No. 1741, the revenue authority had mentioned the measurement of the land as 2635 sq.mtrs instead of 2565 sq.mtrs.
4.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the certification of Entry No. 1741, respondent No. 8 preferred RTS Appeal No. 18 of 2016 and had later on sought withdrawal of the appeal. However, Deputy Collector adjudicated the appeal and passed the order on 18.08.2017 on non-germane grounds.
4.6 Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, the petitioner challenged the same before the Collector, who also, by order dated 03.10.2019, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, preferred the Revision Application before the SSRD who also by order dated 18.11.2020, rejected the Revision Application No. 155 of 2019.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Chhaya submitted that the petitioner purchased the land in question by registered Sale Deed and Entry No. 1741 was mutated in Village Form No. 6 on 30.04.2015 which was certified by the competent authority on 16.10.2015. Thereafter, the objection was raised by the respondent No. 8. as the measurement of the land purchased by the petitioner is stated as 1625 sq.mtrs which is equivalent to the land purchased by respondent No. 8. The correct measurement of the land is 2565 sq.mtrs. However, there was an error committed while mutating Entry No. 1741. Realizing such mistake, respondent No. 8 sought withdrawal of the appeal preferred by him against such entry before the Deputy Collector. However, the Deputy Collector, without considering such request for withdrawal of the appeal, decided the same without looking at the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that there is an error apparent on record committed by Deputy Collector, Collector and SSRD with regard to deletion of Entry No. 1741 contrary to the measurement of the land stated in the sale dee
