Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate on disputes regarding land rights, which must be resolved by the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. There is no objection to the delay in filing of the appeal from any of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of this Court. The delay condonation application has been allowed. Delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The appeal be treated as a registered appeal. Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anshin Desai assisted by Mr. Jay M. Thakkar for applicant No. 1, Mr. Jay R. Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6, Mr. Dilip Rana, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7, Mr. Jinesh Kapadia, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 and perused the record.

3. The appellant herein is the original petitioner, who has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Revenue authorities namely SSRD (Secretary, Revenue Department) in RTS Appeal No. 119 of 2012.

4. The writ petition was filed originally against the heirs and legal representatives of one Shivabhai Merubhai impleaded as Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 before the Writ Court. Respondent No. 5, in the writ petition, is projected as the vendor of the registered sale deed dated 02.07.2011 executed in favour of the petitioner, entry with respect to which was made in the revenue record on 14.03.2012 as Entry No. 18179 and was certified on 14.08.2012.

5. The dispute is with respect to three land parcels having Survey Nos. 313, 316 and 337. The claim of the original petitioner is that he had purchased the lands in question namely three parcels of noted hereinabove vide registered sale deed dated 02.07.2022. The respondent No. 5, in turn, had purchased the lands in question from two persons namely Rajnikant M. Patel and Chunibhai M. Amin, in whose favour mortgage of three plots including other plots was created by the original owner namely Shivabhai Merubhai, whose heirs and legal representatives are impleaded in the writ petition as Respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 and who has been termed as Respondent No. 4 before the learned Single Judge.

6. The claim of the original petitioner is that the revenue entry in favour of Respondent No. 5 namely Rashmikant C. Patel on the basis of the Sale deed executed by Rajnikant Patel and Chunibhai Patel was made on 03.10.2008.

7. Respondent No. 7 (through 7.1 to 7.8 i.e. heirs and legal representatives of Rameshbhai Fulabhai Parmar and Respondent No. 8 namely Tarunbhai Babubhai Keshari are claiming their right in the property on the basis of sale deed dated 02.02.2010 of one plot namely Survey No. 337, executed by original Respondent No. 4 namely the original owner of the plots in question.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the revenue entry in the name of the appellants/original petitioner of the year 2012 could not be cancelled in the proceedings drawn by the Collector vide order dated 05.04.2013, when there was no challenge to the registered sale deed executed by the Respondent no. 5 dated 02.07.2011 in favour of the petitioner herein. Further submission is that, in any case, the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 and Respondent No. 6 as well as Respondent No. 8 are having right of hearing in the proceedings pertaining to cancellation of mutation entry in the name of the petitioner made on 14.03.2012 and certified on 14.08.2012. It is contended that at no stage of the proceedings, between the other respondents who were party to the writ petition the Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.4 and Respondent No. 8 were party.

9. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original petitioner/ appellant herein is that the sale deed dated 02.02.2010, the basis of claim of Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8 allegedly executed by original owner namely Shivabhai Merubhai (Respondent No. 4), has never seen the light of the day, inasmuch as, th