ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.K Majmudar on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma on behalf of the respondent No.1 State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Revisional Authority-respondent no.2 herein dated 30.4.2021, whereby the Revisional Application preferred by the present petitioner is rejected and order passed by the Collector Vadodara dated 24.12.2018 was confirmed.

3. From the facts it can be seen that the grandfather of the present petitioners one Shri Chauhan Nathabhai had sold the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 11.5. 1966 to father of respondents no. 6 and 7 i.e Mr. Thakkar Bansilal Muljibhai . It appears that after the demise of said Thakkar Bansilal Muljibhai, names of his heirs were mutated in the revenue record vide entry no. 4606 dated 13.11.1997. It appears that in the year 2009 the applicants had moved an application before the Mamlatdar, Waghodia interalia claiming that they are having possession of the land in question and whereas their names may be mutated in the revenue record as having possession of the land in question. It appears that vide order dated 18.11.2009, the Mamlatdar, Waghodia had come to a conclusion that father of the petitioner was having possession of the land since last 10 years, and therefore, appropriate entry was directed to be mutated in the revenue record. The said order came to be challenged by private respondents no. 6 and 7 before the Deputy Collector, Vadodara who vide an order passed in the year 2012 has allowed the application preferred by the present respondents no. 6 and 7 and had set aside the order of the Collector, Mamlatdar, Waghodia referred to hereinabove. The said order of the Deputy Collector was confirmed by the Collector vide roder dated 24.12.2018 and the Revisional Authority vide an order dated 30.4.2021 which are impugned in the present petition. It further appears that the present petitioners for the very self same cause had preferred Civil Suit before the Principal Civil Judge, Waghodia vide Regular Civil Suit No. 217 of 2015 and whereas the said Civil Suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 3.1.2019.

4. Having heard learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner and learned AGP on behalf of the official respondent and having perused the order, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fault can be found in the reasoning of the Revisional Authority or by the Collector or Deputy Collector as the case may be. The Mamlatdar, Waghodia while passing the impugned order had gone beyond jurisdiction available more particularly since it is by now a settled position of law that the revenue authorities are not entitled to decide the civil rights of the parties in revenue proceedings. The petitioners by preferring the application before the Mamlatdar, Waghodia was essentially trying to prove their possession on the land in question inspite of the fact that the land had been already sold vide registered sale deed of the year 1966. In the considered opinion of this Court the inquiry by the Mamlatdar whereby the Mamlatdar had interalia recorded statement of neighbouring land holders etc was beyond the purview of jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar.

5. This Court in case of Ratilal Chunilal Solanki and Ors. Vs Shantilal Chunilal Solanki reported in (1996)

2GLR 525 has at para 5 stated as thus :

“5. It cannot be gainsaid that, when a dispute as to the title to the properties mentioned in the revenue records arises, the parties have to go to the competent Civil Court for resolution of their such dispute. They cannot convert the mutation proceedings under Chapter 8A of the Code into a battle-field for the purpose. The revenue authorities are incompetent to decide the disputed question of title to any property mentioned in any revenue record.”

6.

In a later decision this Court in case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (2)

GLR 1370 has state