SHANTIBEN HIRUBHAI Vs. BABUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution India the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08/04/2008 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application No. 53/2007 by which the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat has dismissed the Revision Application on the ground of delay in challenging the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 23/11/2004 in RTS Appeal No. 103/2003.

(2.) At the outset, it is required to be noted that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with mutation entry no. 465 dated 21/04/1975 with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 107/1(old), Revenue Survey No. 89/1(new) situated at village Magdalla, Taluka Choriyasi, District Surat and with the mutation entry no. 884 dated 08/09/1986, the petitioners, for the first time, approached the Deputy Collector, Surat for mutation entry no. 465 dated 21/04/1975by way of RTS Appeal No. 52/2001 after a period of 25 years and after a period of almost 15 years, the subsequent mutation entry no. 884 dated 09/09/1986 was challenged. In the meantime, the petitioners filed substantive suit in the Civil Court in the year 1988 and it is reported that the said suit is still pending. The Deputy Collector, Surat dismissed the appeal against which the petitioners preferred further appeal before the Collector, Surat, which came to be rejected/dismissed by the Collector, Surat vide order dated 23/11/2004. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 23/11/2004 in RTS Appeal No. 103/2003 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat dated 18/06/2003, after a period of approximately 4 years, the petitioners preferred Revision Application before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, being Revision Application No. 53/2007, which came to be dismissed by the revisional authority on the ground of delay vide impugned judgement and order dated 11/04/2008. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that mutation entry no. 465 dated 21/04/1975 and mutation entry no. 884 dated 08/09/1986 came to be challenged by the petitioners after a period of 25 and 15 years respectively by way of appeal before the Deputy Collector, and, thereafter, there was a further delay of four years in preferring the Revision Application before the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and the said Revision Application came to be dismissed on the ground of delay, it cannot be said the learned revisional authority has committed an error in dismissing the said Revision Application on the ground of delay.

(3.) Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the dispute is with respect to the mutation entry and as per the settled law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title and/or interest in favour of the petitioners, whose name is mutated in the revenue record and if there is any dispute with respect to the title, parties are required to approach the Civil Court for establishing their right and on the basis of the decision that may be rendered by the Civil Court, necessary mutation entries are required to be posted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated hereinabove, the petitioners filed the suit in the year 1988, which is reported to be pending. Under the circumstances, it is observed while dismissing the present petition that whatever be the outcome on the basis of the judgement and decree that may be passed by the Civil Court, necessary mutation entry is bound to be made in the revenue record and it is also further observed that merely and solely on the basis of mutation entry nos. 465 and 884, respective parties, in whose name mutation entry is in the revenue record, may not claim any right, title and/or interest on the land in question solely on that basis and the aforesaid entries as stated hereinabove shall always be subject to the further order that may be passed by the Civil Court.