C/LPA/924/2017 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 924 of 2017

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6078 of 1999

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

and

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to

see the judgment ?

No

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

No

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the

judgment ?

No

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law

as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any

order made thereunder ?

No

==========================================================

KANUBHAI VIRABHAI HEIRS OF DECVIRABHAI RAPABHAI BARIYA

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR. SAHIL TRIVEDI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the

Respondent(s) No. 1

NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4

UNSERVED EXPIRED (N)(9) for the Respondent(s) No. 5

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

and

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

Page 1 of 8

C/LPA/924/2017 JUDGMENT

Date : 03/03/2020

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

The present Letters Patent Appeal is

preferred by the original petitioner against

judgment and order dated 28^th February, 2017,

passed by learned Single Judge, whereby Special

Civil Application No. 6078 of 1999 came to be

dismissed.

2.

In the said Special Civil Application,

the appellant-petitioner had prayed to set aside

order dated 5^th December, 1998, passed by the

Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department-

the Revisional Authority, allowing the Revision

Application. The petitioner further prayed to

restore order dated 9^th December, 1993, of the

Collector, Panchmahals.

2.1

It may be mentioned that the Revisional

Authority in the order dated 5^th December, 1998,

held that Mutation Entry No. 169 was liable to be

cancelled as it was rendered ineffective in view

of Mutation Entry No. 275. As regards another

Revenue Entry No. 384, it was held that the order

of

the

Collector,

Panchmahals,

Godhra,

aforementioned was bad in law. The Collector,

Panchmahals, by his order dated 9^th December,

1993, had in turn set aside the order of the

Page 2 of 8

C/LPA/924/2017 JUDGMENT

Deputy Collector, in so far as it had treated

Entry No. 384 to be invalid and bad in law. The

Collector came to the conclusion that Entry No.

384 was properly made.

3.

In order to appreciate the controversy

and the issue involved, the relevant facts may be

outlined. The mutation entries brought under

dispute related to land Survey No. 31 of village

Nani Sanjeli of Limkheda Taluka. The original

holder occupier of the land was one Valiben,

widow of Fulji Kamji. Said Valiben had no male

child. The land in question was subjected to

family partition. Veerabhai Rupabhai, father of

the petitioner happened to be the nephew of said

Valiben. He became co-sharer and co-cultivator.

3.1

It appears that by virtue of Entry No.

169 mutated on 2.2.1960, the name of Veera Rupa

was entered in the Revenue records in respect of

land Survey No. 31/2. Land Survey No. 31 was

formally divided into four parts, that is 31/1,

31/2, 31/3 and 31/4, which was reflected in

mutation Entry No. 275 which was posted in the

year 1967. In between, Entry No. 27