IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for documentary evidence to prove the status of agriculturists and the importance of acting vigilantly for mutation of names in the revenue record.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 28.3.2017 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.HKP/MSN/54/2016.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. Hence, Rule. Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned advocate Mr. Jay R. Shah waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.3.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that land bearing Block No.489/2 admeasuring 00 - 36 - 42 Hectare - RA - Sq. Mts. situated at Mouje Ladol, Tal. Vijapur was originally owned by Bai Hira Mulshankar. The father of the petitioners late Gedalmiya Alladin was the tenant in respect of the disputed land in question on tillers day. Since the owner of the land was a widow, as per Section 32 F of the Tenancy Act, sale in favour of the father of the petitioner was postponed and entry to that effect was mutated vide Entry No.5186 in the revenue record.

3.1 Upon death of Gedalmiya, brother of the petitioners, namely, Ibrahim was holding the land on behalf of the family and he and others purchased the disputed land from original owner for which proceedings under Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act were initiated by way of Tenancy Case No.Ladol/84C/92/1976 and the Mamlatdar & ALT by imposing penalty of Rs.1 regularized the sale in their favour and imposed restrictions of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and Entry No.9560 was mutated in the revenue record in respect of the above sale.

3.2 According to the petitioners, they are daughters of original tenants and the sisters of Ibrahim - respondent No.5 herein, and they applied for entering their names in the revenue record for which Entry No.26220 was mutated in the revenue record on 21.2.2014. The said entry was mutated on the basis of a declaration-cum-consent of respondent No.5 who happens to be brother of the petitioners i.e. Ibrahim and others whose name was running in the revenue record along with Pedhinama.

3.3 What is important to note is the fact that when Entry No.26220 was mutated, one of the sister, namely, Roshanbibi had already expired on 22.12.2013 and during her life time, no such application was made and application was made only after death of Roshanbibi and another sister, namely, Basiranbibi had entered in her 60s.

3.4 However, as the present petitioners could not produce any documentary evidence that the petitioners are the agriculturists in view of restrictions of Section 43, Entry No.26220 was not certified and the same was rejected by the Mamlatdar & ALT. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeal was preferred before the Deputy Collector being Appeal No.54 of 2014 which was also dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2014.

3.5 Being further aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No.257 of 2014 before the District Collector which was also rejected vide order dated 8.10.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No.HKP/MSN/54/2016 which came to be rejected vide order dated 28.3.2017 by the learned SSRD.

3.6 Hence the present petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners happen to be sisters of respondent No.5 - Ibrahim and as the respondent No.5 who happens to be brother of deceased Gedalmiya, all three are legal heirs of Gedalmiya who was the original tenant, by way of succession, they have become agriculturist and, therefore, no such document is required to prove that they are agriculturists. He further pointed out from the order passed in the year 1976 which is annexed along with the additional affidavit at page 47 of the petition, that since the aforesaid order was passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in respect of tenancy proceedings, an inference is required to be drawn that Gedalmiya was a tenant and, therefore, Gedalmiya being a te