The court emphasized that revenue authorities cannot exercise powers vested under other statutes while dealing with specific proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

A.P. THAKER, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department (the SSRD) in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/ 335/2016 dated 03.11.2017 whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the District Collector, Ahmedabad came to be confirmed, the petitioner preferred this petition under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

2.1. The dispute pertains to the land bearing survey no. 325 admeasuring 5 acres 11 gunthas of village Koth, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad which was in ownership and in occupation of Khoda Dhor Panjrapole which was a public Charitable Trust. The Trust was a registered Charitable Trust and in view of it under Section 88B of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Act), it was exempted from the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

2.2. That as per the revenue record, the name of the father of the petitioner was shown as occupier of the land in question right from the year 1953 and he was tilling the land. The said land was purchased by the father of the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 24.04.1987, after the necessary permission was granted by the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Charitable Trust Act to sell out the property. Since, the petitioner and their father were unaware of the procedural aspects, they did not applied for mutation of their name in the revenue record and even the revenue authorities failed to discharge their duty to make entry under Section 135(C) of the Land Revenue Code.

2.3. That the petitioner and their family members approached the authority for mutation of an entry of registered sale deed and accordingly entry no. 5624 was mutated in the village form no. 6 as kacha entry however, the same was not certified. Against that action, petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Dholka which was registered as Case No. 91 of 2012. The Deputy Collector while referring the provisions of Section 88B of the Tenancy Act and Devsthan Inami Abolition Act, 1969, rejected the same. Against that order, revision came to be preferred before the District Collector, Ahmedabad being Revision Application No. 491 of 2015. He has also dismissed the revision application.

2.4. That the said order came to be challenged before the learned SSRD, who in turn has also rejected the same. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that the Trust which has sold the land to the father of the petitioners was a charitable trust and therefore, Section 88B of the Tenancy Act is not applicable as well as on the ground that after the permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Charitable Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner, the land was sold by the Trust to the father of the petitioner by registered sale deed and therefore, it cannot be hit by any legal provisions. According to the petitioner, these facts have not been considered by the revenue authorities and they have no such authority to cancel the revenue entry.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent State at length. Perused the material placed on record.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Chaya for the petitioner has reiterated the facts which are narrated in the memo of petition which are referred to hereinabove. He has submitted that since the Trust was a Charitable Trust, Section 88B of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable and the Trust has sold the property after obtaining necessary permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Charitable Trust Act. He has submitted that there was no proceeding initiated under the Tenancy Act and therefore while exercising powers under the RTS proceedings, the authority ought not to have considered the aspects of the other acts. He has submitted that it is a cross exercise o