Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/797/2011 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 797 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2077 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
PATEL
LAKHUBHAI KISHORBHAI & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
PATEL
KANTIBHAI MANGALBHAI & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS.KHUSHBOO
V MALKAN for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.
SHANTILAL G PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
MS. KRINA CALLA, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 4
- 5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 7/10/2011
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
In
this appeal, the appellant – original petitioner challenges judgment
and order dated 21.2.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in SCA No.
2077 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the petition
confirming the order passed by Revisional Authority – Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, dated 29.6.2010,
passed in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/PCHM/6/07.
2. The
facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be
summarized as under:-
2.1 The
dispute substantially relates to mutation of entries in the Revenue
record. Mutation entry No. 824 came to be recorded in the Revenue
record relating to land bearing survey No. 226/paiki-2, Moje:
Charangam (Namnar), Tal. Lunavada, some time in the year 1989-90.
This mutation of entry came to be challenged by the appellant herein
after a period of 22 years. It also appears that with respect to the
very land in question, Civil Suit is also pending in the Court of
Civil Court at Lunawada, being Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of 2007,
filed by the appellant herein for a declaration and injunction. The
authorities below, taking into consideration the fact that an entry
mutated as far back as in the year 1989-90 cannot be challenged after
a period of almost two decades, refused to grant any relief to the
appellant. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector,
Panchmahals in RTS Appeal No. 10 of 2007 and the order passed by the
Revisional Authority, Secretary (Appeals), Revenue, appellant –
original petitioner preferred SCA No. 2077 of 2011, challenging the
same.
3. Learned
Single Judge took notice of two important aspects, namely – (i) delay
of almost 22 years in challenging the mutation entry and (ii) that
the very same dispute is pending before the Civil Court at Lunawada,
in the form of Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of 2007.
4. In
our opinion, if learned Single Judge having noticed these two aspects
rejected the petition, then no error is said to have been committed,
much less an error of law, warranting any interference in this
appeal.
5. It
is a settled law that mutation of entries in the record of rights is
only for fiscal purposes. By mutation of an entry, no right, title
or interest is created in favour of any party and by deletion of the
same also, no right, title or interest, if any, can be said to have
been extinguished. Any issue as regards right, title and interest in
a property can only be decided by a competent Civil Court and it is
only after the competent Civil Court adjudicates and passes a decree
determining the rights of the parties with respect to a property in
question that the entry can be mutated as per the decree passed by
the competent Civil Court.
6. In
the above view of the mater, and in the absence of any merit in the
appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.L.
Dave, Actg. C.J.)
(J.B.
Pardiwala, J.)
*/Mohandas
Top