Reserved On : 09/07/2025 Pronounced On : 09/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8354 of 1999 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No No ==========================================================

VARSING MADIYA BHURIYA & ORS.

Versus GOVT OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 2 MS TRUSHA K. PATEL, SR. COUNSEL with MR NAYAN D. PAREKH(5010)

for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2.1,2.10,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8,2.9,3,4 MS FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR Y. M. THAKKAR(902) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,8 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 7 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

CAV JUDGMENT

1. In the present Special Civil Application, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) Kindly admit and allow this petition;

(B) 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 the order dated 11.05.1999 passed by the Dy. Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat - respondent no.1 herein and also the order of Dy. Collector and Collector in the interest of justice;

(C) declare the entry No.312 recorded before the concerned authority is legal and valid and further to declare that it is not required to be changed.

(D) stay the orders of the Dy. Secretary, Revenue Department, Dy. Collector and Collector, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(E) Call for the records and proceedings, Dy. Collector and Collector in this case.”

(F) remand the case before the Mamlatdar of Garbada Taluka who is the concerned authority and direct the Mamlatdar to examine and investigate and pass appropriate decision in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioners claim to be the cousin brothers of the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8 and in possession of the land bearing survey No.112 admeasuring 13 Acres 28 gunthas in Bhev Village. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners viz. Madiya Kanjibhai was the younger brother of the father of the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8. It is the further case of the petitioners that by way of partition between the brothers, the subject land came into the share of the father of the petitioners viz. Madiya Kanjibhai and accordingly, the mutation entry No.312 dated 11.01.1951 came to be effected in the revenue record. That the said mutation entry also came to be certified on 14.01.1954.

2.1 That the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8 challenged the said mutation entry No.312 dated 11.01.1951 by filing R.T.S Appeal No.47 of 1991 after a period of almost 39 years on the ground that the father of the petitioners is not related to the respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein and is not the brother of their father as claimed by the petitioners. It is the further case of the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8 that the subject land was always in possession of the family of the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8. When the father of the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8 viz. Vinjhabhai Kanjibhai expired, they were minors. Upon attaining the majority, their names came to be mutated in the revenue records by way of heirship being mutation entry No.310 dated 11.01.1951. It was the further case of the contesting respondents that on the very same day, their names came to be deleted and another entry being mutation entry No.312 came to be entered in favour of the father of the petitioners herein on the ground that there was a partition in the family and the subject land came to the share of the father of the petitioners. The said R.T.S Appeal No.47 of 1991 came to be dis