The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise confirmed by a civil court decree can affect the standing of parties to challenge entries in revenue records, and that no interference is required under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when examining such disputes.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rajesh B. Soni for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Hetal Patel for the respondent-State.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29th November, 2022 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (for short ‘the SSRD’).

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were original land owners of land bearing block no. 257b and 258 of village Badodara, District-Ahmedabad.

3.2. On 20.10.2001, the Deputy Collector, Viramgam passed the order for the conversion of land from New Tenure to old Tenure. On 22.10.2001, Entry No. 2900 was mutated of the said order dated 22.10.2001 and certified on 29.07.2002. On 03.12.2002, respondent No. 3 purchased the said land from the petitioners by way of registered sale-deed.

3.3. On 13.12.2001, Entry No. 2903 was mutated on the basis of said sale-deed.

3.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Entry No. 2903 was not certified because of breach of condition No. 4 of order dated 20.10.2001 and therefore, the said order came into force after due approval of the District Collector.

3.5. Thereafter, the State of Gujarat initiated proceedings for breach of Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’).

3.6. It is the case of the petitioners that on 29.01.2005, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed an order on the basis of consent of both the parties and directed that the land to be restored in the name original owner within period of three months failing which, the said land to be into Government land.

3.7. It is the case of the petitioners that on 17.04.2017, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejected the Review Application No. TEN/BA/97/2012 in which, the Tribunal held that the applicant i.e. the respondent No. 3 herein had not produced any evidence to prove his status of farmer in response of his saledeed dated 03.12.2001 for land bearing R.S. No. 257b of Village: Badodara, Taluka: Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad.

3.8. It is the case of the petitioners that on 13.06.2017, the respondent No. 3 herein, made another attempt to insert Entry No. 3869 in the revenue record based on the earlier sale-deed dated 03.12.2001. The said entry was mutated in the revenue record of block No. 257B (New block No. 129). The petitioners filed an objection application and the Revenue Officer, i.e. Circle Officer registered the said Entry No. 3869 as disputed entry.

3.9. It is the case of the petitioners that the Mamlatdar, Daskroi proceeded under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules but without hearing the petitioners, the Mamlatdar decided the said dispute and certified the said entry i.e. Entry No. 3869 in favour of the respondent No. 3.

3.10. Having regard to the repeated proceedings, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application to the Collector regarding the conduct of Mamlatdar. It is the case of the petitioners that the Collector did not take any action against the Mamlatdar and advised the petitioner to challenge the order by way of filing an Appeal.

3.11. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners challenged the said order of Mamlatdar dated 31.08.2017 before Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad and the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad confirmed the order of Mamlatdar on 02.06.2018 and rejected the RTS Appeal of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said order of Deputy Collector before the Collector, Ahmedabad being LB/REV.A/NO. 461/2018.

3.12. On 29.06.2019, the petitioners filed an application to the Collector, Ahmedabad to consider the conduct of Revenue Officer as well as the respondent No. 3 regarding Contempt of Court for repeated proceedings and requested to refer the matter before this Court for necessary proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act. As the Collector, Ahmedabad was not taking action and not decided the said application, the petitioners preferred