IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19544 of 2017 ==========================================================

KIRITBHAI JAGUBHAI DESAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR YASH JOSHI FOR MR BHAVIN J SATWARA(3718) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP (99) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4,5 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 22/03/2018

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.Yash Joshi for learned advocate Mr.Bhavin Sathvara for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for respondent – State and its authorities and learned advocate Mr.Adil Mirza for private respondent Nos.4 and 5 on caveat.

2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 07^th July, 2017 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad. Thereby the said revisional authority allowed Revision Application No.40 of 2017 preferred by private respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.

3. The dispute treated by the revenue authorities was in relation to Mutation Entry No.4110

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

was in respect of sale transaction dated 06^th December, 2010 effected in favour of the private respondent Nos.4 and 5 – the revisionists by one Sarojben Desai and Kishorbhai Desai. The part of the land bearing Survey No.500/1/A in Khata No.444 standing in the share of the said vendors came to be sold as aforesaid by executing registered deed. It appears that the land had four co-sharers but the sale was for the part of the land standing to the share of the sellers.

3.1 It appears that the Circle Officer cancelled the said Entry No.4410 on 23^rd July, 2012. Private respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred RTS Appeal No.47 of 2013 before the Deputy Collector which was allowed on 25^th October, 2013. The Deputy Collector directed the Mamlatdar to enter the Entry, pursuant to which the Mamlatdar entered the Entry No.4347 on 02^nd November, 2013 and the same was certified on 03^rd February, 2014. Thereafter filed by the present petitioner Revision Application No.109 of 2014 before the Collector which appeal was allowed.

3.2 Preferred thereafter by the private respondent Nos.4 and 5 was the Revision Application which was allowed by the revisional authority, being the order impugned in the present petition.

4. In course of the submissions by the parties, it was pointed out that respondent No.5 had filed Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2014 for partition

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

Court at Pardi. 4.1 It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when the suit was pending and other co-sharers were there and yet the same land was sold, Entry ought not to have been mutated. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the reasoning given by the revisional authority. On the other hand, it was the say of the private respondents – revisionists that the sale was only qua the share of the vendors as was clearly evinced from the sale document and that the document was duly registered document.

5. In allowing the Revision Application and setting aside the order of the Collector, the revisional authority has taken a view that the Entry No.4110 was pursuant to registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and until the competent court sets aside the registered transaction, Entry has to be remained in force in the revenue record. The revisional authority also observed that the outcome of the Civil Suit No.27 of 2014 will bind the parties. This observation shall continue to operate as it is trite position that the Mutation Entry could claim only fiscal value and all title related rights and ownership incidences with regard to property would be determined by the civil court.

5.1 It is well settled principle stated in Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P.O.A. Holder Ashok

Click Here to Read the rest of this document