GANESHBHAI KALUBHAI CHAMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Dahod dated 07.04.2006 in R.T.S. Appeal No.102/2005 as well as the order passed by the District Collector, Dahod dated 07.10.2006 in R.T.S. Revision Application No.31/2006 as well as the order passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat dated 30.07.2008 in Revision Application No.31/2006.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record vide mutation entry No.412 dated 19.07.1966, which came to be upset by the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Dahod dated 07.04.2006 in R.T.S. Appeal No.102/2005. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of private respondents that as such the land in question was of joint ownership and joint family property and at the relevant time, the name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record being the elder member of the family and as per the Government circular of 1996, name of all the members of joint family was required to be mutated in the revenue record if the land in question is jointly cultivated and therefore, private respondents submitted an application for including their names in the revenue record by submitting an appropriate application before the Deputy Collector, which was rightly allowed and names of private respondents were rightly came to be mutated in the revenue record.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respective parties that as such a Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.63/2005 is preferred by the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction pending in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Jhalod and now, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dahod dated 04.12.2008 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.28/2006, it is agreed between the parties and consequently it is ordered to both the sides to maintain status-quo of the suit property and not to enter in any type of transaction in an individual capacity with the third party regarding suit property and the possession of suit property shall be maintained by both the parties as on that date till final disposal of the suit. Considering the above, it appears that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry and as per the settled law, the mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of a person whose name is mutated in the revenue record solely on that basis and if there is any dispute between the parties with respect to the title, aggrieved party has to approach the Civil Court and establish his right and on the basis of the decision that may be rendered by the Civil Court, necessary mutation entry is required to be made. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the dispute is now pending before the Civil Court being Regular Civil Suit No.63/2005 and necessary entry can be made in the revenue record on the basis of the decision that may be rendered by the Civil Court. Parties are also required to maintain status-quo as per the orders passed by the District Court in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.28/2006.