Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 2129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
Shardaben, D/o. Davalbhai Patel – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 11047 Of 2024
Decided On : 07-10-2024
For the Petitioner: MR ASIT B. JOSHI.
For the Respondents: MR J.K. SHAH, AGP .
The court reaffirmed that the Mamlatdar must mutate documents regarding pending litigation as per established legal precedents, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Land Revenue Code - Section 135C - Mutation of registered document regarding lis pendens - The City Mamlatdar refused to mutate a registered document citing a Government Circular stating no provision exists for such mutation without a judicial order. The court held that the Mamlatdar is required to mutate the document as per established legal principles. (Paras 3, 11, 13)
(B) Judicial Discipline - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to previous decisions of coordinate benches and the importance of referring conflicting views to a larger bench to maintain legal certainty. (Paras 10.1, 10.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Mamlatdar's refusal to mutate a registered document concerning ongoing litigation, asserting that established case law mandates such mutation. The petitioner had previously filed a civil suit and appealed to the Supreme Court, which is still pending. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Mamlatdar's order, directing him to mutate the document after verifying its compliance with legal requirements. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Mamlatdar was required to mutate the document regarding lis pendens and the implications of conflicting judicial decisions. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Mamlatdar must follow established legal precedents regarding the mutation of documents related to ongoing litigation, emphasizing the need for judicial consistency. (Paras 11.1, 13)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Asit B. Joshi for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State. Learned Senior Advocate Ms. Trusha Patel has requested permission to address the Court and whereas considering that an issue of legal importance is involved, learned Senior Advocate Ms. Patel has been heard by the Court.
2. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Asit B. Joshi would not press the Prayer 17 (B), the said request is acceded to. The present petition is taken up for rest of the prayers.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the City Mamlatdar, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad, whereby the City Mamlatdar has refused request of the petitioner to mutate a registered document with regard to lis pendens in the revenue record inter alia observing that as per a Government Circular dated 31.05.2022, since there is no provision in the Gujarat Land Revenue Code for mutating a registered document with regard to lis pendens and whereas according to the said Circular, lis pendens should be mutated only if there is an order of a judicial court.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi for the petitioner would submit that the view taken by the Mamlatdar is completely illegal and is against the law settled by this Court in catena of decisions. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi in this regard would submit that the issue in question is with regard to various parcels of land bearing Block/Revenue Survey Nos. 229, 259/2, 199, 383/3 and 383/4 situated at mouje Thaltej, Taluka Ghatlodiya, District Ahmedabad.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner had insofar as the property in question is concerned, preferred a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 370/2010 and whereas the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2022 had dismissed the civil suit against which, the petitioner had preferred First Appeal No. 5014 of 2022, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2023. It is submitted that against the order passed by this Court in the said First Appeal, confirming the order of the learned Trial Court, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3178 of 2024 and whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed an order on 12.02.2024 calling for the record of the Trial Court. It is submitted that the said petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is still pending. It is stated that the petitioner wanted to have the lis i.e. the litigation pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court mutated in the revenue record and for such purpose, the petitioner had registered the lis vide document dated 25.04.2024 and upon the petitioner presenting the said document for mutation in the revenue record, the same came to be rejected by the Mamlatdar, being aggrieved by which, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi would draw the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in case of Dipakbhai Manilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary, reported in 2007 (2) GLR 1297 and would submit that a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said decision has inter alia observed that once a registered document with regard to a pending litigation is presented before the Mamlatdar, the Mamlatdar is required to enter the same in the revenue record.
6.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi would submit that the view taken by the learned Co-ordinate Bench in case of Dipakbhai Manilal Patel (supra) is consistently being followed by this Court and whereas learned Advocate also refers decision of this Court in case of Daxaben W/o Maheshbhai Thakor D/o Dilipji Popatji Thakor Vs. State of Guarat, dated 12.01.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 16318 of 2021. Learned Advocate would submit that in the said decision, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had noticed the Circular of the State Government dated 30.05.2022 and would submit that inspite of the said Circular,
