JAYANTIBHAI JOITABHAI Vs. MAMLATDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein have prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent authority to implement the act as per the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana dated 27.03.1979. It is required to be noted that present petition has been preferred after a period of 31 years with a prayer directing the appropriate authority to implement the order of remand passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana dated 27.03.1979 with respect to the mutation entry in the revenue record. Nothing is on record that in between any efforts were made by the petitioners to see that the order passed by the Deputy collector, Mehsana on 27.03.1979 is implemented. Under the circumstances, present petition after a period of 31 years with a prayer to direct the respondent authority to implement the order of remand passed by the Deputy Collector, Mehsana, cannot be entertained. It is also required to be noted that even present petition is filed after the respondents filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Court with respect to the very property in question. Even otherwise it is to be noted that dispute is with respect to mutation entry and as per the settled law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of person whose name is entered into revenue record solely on the basis of his name included in the revenue record. If there is any dispute between the parties with respect to title, the aggrieved party is required to approach the Civil Court for establishing his/their right and on the basis of the decision of the Civil Court, necessary entry is required to be mutated in the revenue record. In the present case, as stated herein above, with respect to the very land in question, other side has already instituted a Civil Suit. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that concerned respondents are trying to dispose of the property. If petitioners have any other grievance, they can certainly approach the Civil Court which may take decision in accordance with law. However, at this stage, after a period of 31 years, petitioners cannot be permitted to pray for implementation of the order of remand which was passed in the year 1979.

(2.) UNDER the circumstances, there being no substance in the present petition, it deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.