Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
NAGABHAI HEGODABHAI KANBI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 560 of 2024, Special Civil Application No. 2161 of 2018, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 27-06-2024
Land - Revenue Dispute - Act Section List - The court discussed principles of natural justice, land ownership rights, and the authority's rectification powers under land revenue laws, concluding that the respondent's actions were justified and did not violate legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged an order regarding land ownership after a resurvey, claiming rightful ownership of land that was reassigned to the respondent. The dispute arose from conflicting claims over land parcels after a digital land record modernization program.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's claims were valid and that the order in question was a rectification of a clerical error, not an ex parte decision. The appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their ownership of the disputed land.
Issues: Whether the order dated 13.12.2017 was valid and whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the process of rectifying land records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of documentary evidence from the appellants undermined their claim to the land, and the authority acted within its rights to correct previous errors in land records.
Result: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.
ORDER :
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellants - original petitioners assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2161 of 2018.
2. The prayers made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by the original petitioners was to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Superintendent of Land Records-cum-Consolidating Officer.
3. Learned Single Judge after hearing the contentions and averments made by both the parties was pleased to observe that the impugned orders were rightly passed and does not require any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition being devoid of merit was accordingly dismissed.
4. The factual matrix which has led to the filing of the writ petition was that the land in question bearing Revenue Survey No. 97 paiki 2 situated at Moje : Vinchivadi, Taluk : Dhanera, District : Banaskantha belonged to the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”). It is the case of the petitioners that under the Digital India Land Record Modernization Program, the State of Gujarat vide resolution dated 16.09.2013 promulgated resurveying of the lands situated in the District of Banaskantha. Pursuant to resurvey, Revenue Survey No. 97 paiki 2 was renumbered as Survey No. 376 and Survey No. 377 as New Survey No. 376 admeasuring Hectare-Are : 1-76-67 sq. mtr. whereas new Survey No. 377 admeasuring Hectare-Are : 4-33-05 sq. mtr.
4.1 It was the case of the respondent that both the Survey numbers belonged to him. However, after promulgation Survey No. 376 has been shown in the name of the petitioners, whereas Survey No. 377 was reflected in the name of the respondent.
4.2 Being aggrieved by the re-measurement, the respondent preferred an application being Application No. 467 before the respondent authority on 22.11.2016. The said application was allowed ex parte vide order dated 09.03.2017 wherein it was observed that the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 377 will also include the area of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 376, as initially both the lands belonged to the respondent. Pursuant to the order dated 09.03.2017, the respondent sold some portion of the land from Survey No. 376 to Amarbhai Andalbhai Kanbi and Devjibhai Madhabhai Kanbi vide sale deed dated 19.06.2017. The names of the purchasers Amarbhai Andalbhai Kanbi and Devjibhai Madhabhai Kanbi were also entered into the revenue records qua the portion of lands sold the same.
4.3 Pursuant to the order dated 09.03.2017, the petitioners then preferred an application dated 19.08.2017 before the respondent authority, requesting to pass fresh orders from the land of respondent and to re-open the revenue records for the land qua Survey No. 376, which was shown in the name of the petitioners. The application dated 19.08.2017 was allowed vide order dated 27.10.2017 by the respondent authority and the revenue records of land bearing Survey No. 376 were again reopened and the land admeasuring 1-76-67 of new Revenue Survey No. 376 was deconsolidated from the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 377.
4.4 The petitioners, therefore, filed application on 13.11.2017 before Respondent No. 2, namely, Superintendent of Land Record-cum-Consolidating Officer that due to sale transaction of the consolidated land being Revenue Survey No. 377, the land was divided into two parts being Revenue Survey No. 377 Paiki 1 admeasuring 4-19-48 sq. mts. and Revenue Survey No. 377 Paiki 2 admeasuring 1-90-02 sq. mts. The petitioner requested to pass an order of mutation of revenue entry pursuant to the order dated 27.10.2017 in the revenue records.
The respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 23.11.2017 to deconsolidate the land being Revenue Survey No. 376 admeasuring 1-76-67 sq. mtr. belonging to the petitioners from the land bearing Reve
The court affirmed that rectification of land records by authorities is valid when based on existing revenue records, and the absence of evidence from claimants undermines their ownership assertions.
A party cannot seek relief in court if it has not come with clean hands or fully disclosed relevant facts, and past decisions can bar subsequent similar claims.
Request for correction of clerical errors in land records can be entertained regardless of a delay, as per the circular issued by the authorities.
The court ruled that claims based on dubious entries in Grampanchayat Registers cannot be upheld, emphasizing the need for a civil suit to establish title rather than relying on revenue proceedings.
The court upheld the dismissal of petitions due to dubious entries in Grampanchayat records, emphasizing the need for civil suits to establish title rather than relying on administrative decisions.
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
