Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12817/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12817 of 2010
=========================================================
SANJAYBHAI
BALDEVBHAI PATEL THRO' POA RAKESH BHAGWANBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY (APPEALS) & 7 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
JITENDRA M PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NK RAVAL AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
8.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 30/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2009 passed by respondent no. 1
in Revision Application No. 34/1999, whereby respondent no. 1 has
rejected the said revision application.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey No. 110
admeasuring 0 hectare 46 RA and 54 sq.mtrs. and Survey No. 113
admeasuring 0 hectare 63 RA and 74 sq.mtrs, situated in the sim of
Village Ognaj, Tal & District Ahmedabad were belonging to
respondents nos. 4 to 8. The original owners have converted the said
land from new tenure to old tenure vide order dated 04.01.1997 passed
by the Mamlatdar. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the said land
vide registered sale deed dated 10.01.1997 from respondent nos. 4 to
8. Pursuant thereto, respondent no. 3-Society purchased land bearing
Survey No. 113 admeasuring 1 Acre and 13 Gunthas from the Power of
Attorney Holder of the land owners vide registered sale deed dated
16.01.1997 and similarly purchased the land bearing Survey No. 110
admeasuring 1 Acre and 6 Gunthas vide registered sale deed dated
16.01.1997. Pursuant to the sale deed dated 10.01.1997, mutation
entry no. 4610 dated 06.02.1997 was made in the revenue record. For
the aforesaid two sale deeds each dated 16.01.1997, for the lands
purchased by respondent no. 3-Society, mutation entry no. 4592 dated
18.01.1997 and mutation entry no. 4593 dated 18.01.1997 were made in
the revenue record. However, the petitioner objected to the said
entries and therefore, the Mamlatdar entered the same as disputed
entry. As all the entries were objected, the Mamlatdar vide order
dated 21.04.1997 cancelled the mutation entry no. 4610, which was
made in pursuance of the registered sale deed dated 10.01.1997.
2.1. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred RTS Appeal No.
102/2007 before the Deputy Collector. The said order was also
challenged by the original land owners by preferring RTS Appeal No.
107/2997 before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector vide order
dated 03.10.1997 allowed the Tenancy Appeals preferred by the
petitioner and the land owners and set aside the order dated
21.04.1997 passed by the Mamlatdar and further cancel the mutation
entry no. 4592 and 4593 dated 18.01.1997 and certified the mutation
entry no. 4610 dated 06.02.1997 in favour of the petitioner.
2.2. Against
the said order, respondent no.3-Society preferred Revision
Application No. 238/1997 before the Collector. The Collector, vide
order dated 08.12.1998 allowed the said Revision Application. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order, the petitioner
preferred Revision Application No. 34 of 1999 before the State
Government-respondent no.1 herein. Respondent no. 1 vide order dated
04.08.2009 dismissed the said revision application. Hence, this
petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The sale deed dated 10.01.1997 executed in favour of the
petitioner was registered on 30.01.1997. However, as per the order of
the Mamlatdar, the land was converted to old tenure land, but the
land cannot be transferred till the said order is confirmed by the
Deputy Collector. In the present case, the Prant Officer and Deputy
Collector confirmed the said order on 15.01.1997 and the sale deed
was executed in favour of the petitioner on 10.01.1997. Thus, the
petitioner has executed the document before the Prant Officer
confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. In other words, the
petitioner has transferred the land before the Prant Officer
confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. Thus, there is a breach of the
condition of the order passed by the Mamlatdar.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case, in my opinion, the respondent no. 1 has not
committed any illegality or impropriety while rejecting the revision
application filed by the petitioner. I am in complete agreement with
the reasonings given by respondent no.1 in the impugned order and
hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same. It is, however,
observed that the entry in question will be subject to final out come
of the Special Civil Suit No. 117/2002 pending before the Civil Judge
(SD), Ahmedabad (Rural) and Special Civil Suit No. 280/1998 pending
before the Civil Judge (SD) Ahmedabad (Rural) and the confirmation of
the entry will decide the possession of the either side.
5. Consequently,
the petition is dismissed.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top