The court ruled that revenue proceedings must respect the outcomes of related civil litigation concerning land titles.

ORDER

[1]

The order-sheet indicates that the learned advocate for the petitioner has remained absent and therefore, matter is adjourned from time to time. On last occasion also, learned advocate was not present when the matter was called out.

Hence, the matter was adjourned today. Today also, when the matter is called out twice, learned advocate is absent.

[2]

The present petition is preferred for following prayer, which reads as under:-

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to call for record and Proceedings of MKK/HKP/UNR/9/2021before the Ld. Special Secretary Revenue Department, Ahmedabad and after perusing the same be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Ld.SSRD, Ahmedabad in MKK/HKP/JNR/9/2021 and order dated 07.05.2021 of Ld. Collector, Jamnagarin RTS Revision/JMN/5/2020 and order dated 31.12.2019 of Ld. Deputy Collector, Lalpur, Jamnagar in HKP/APPEAL/26/2019 and thereby upheld the order of the Ld.

Mamlatadar, Lalpur, Jamnagar in Takrari Case 06/2019 and cancel the mutation entry no. 1312 dated 26/04/2019.” [3]

The Court has taken into consideration the reasons assigned by the SSRD, wherein the Mamlatdar, Lalpur conducted the proceedings of the Takrari Case No.06/2019 of entry for sale vide No. 1312 made in the village record with respect to the agricultural land with new Survey No.92 (Old Survey No. 271/Paiki. 6) of Pipali village of Lalpur Taluka and it was rejected vide the order dated 30.08.2019. Being aggrieved with the same, the Respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the Prant Officer, Lalpur under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. The Prant Officer, Lalpur conducted proceedings of the appeal and granted the appeal vide the Order No. HKP/Appeal/26/2019 dated 31.12.2019 and passed the order to reject the order of the Mamlatdar, Lalpur for rejecting Entry No.1312. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner filed a Revision Application before the Collector, Jamnagar. In this regard, the Collector, Jamnagar rejected the revision application of the petitioner vide the Order No – R.T.S./ Revision/JMN/5/2020 dated 30.03.2021 and upheld the order dated 31.12.2019 of the Prant Officer, Lalpur. [4]

The agricultural land with New Survey No. 92 (Old Survey No. 271/Paiki. 6) of Pipali village of Lalpur Taluka has been purchased by respondent No.2 through the registered sale deed No. 740/2019 dated 26.04.2019. The Entry No. 1321 for the same was made on 26.04.2019 in the village record. As an objection application was submitted against the said entry, the Mamlatdar, Lalpur conducted the proceedings of the Takrari Case No.6/2019 and granted the objection application and passed an order dated 30.08.019 to reject the impugned Entry No.1312. As an appeal was filed before the Prant Officer, Lalpur against the impugned order of the Mamlatdar, the appeal was granted vide the Order No.HKP/Appeal/26/2019 dated 31.12.2019 and an order has been passed to reject the order of the Mamlatdar, Lalpur with respect to reject the Entry No. 1312 and to recover the unpaid due of the Government on the land in dispute. It is an disputed fact that the land in dispute has been sold through a registered sale deed. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 11/2019 in the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Lalpur to get the said sale deed cancelled. No such evidences have been produced that an injunction order has been passed or the sale deed has been cancelled in this case.

[4]

The Court has also observed that the Revenue Secretary has categorically indicated in the impugned order that the outcom