JYOTIBEN TRIKAMBHAI GAJJAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants - original petitioners have challenged an oral order dtd. 13/07/2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7594 of 2020 challenging an order dtd. 30/12/2019 passed by learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, in which, the appeal was not entertained. The present appellants have challenged an entry no.6128 mutated on 19/01/2001 and certified on 02 /03/2001 with regard to an agricultural land having survey / block No.278/2 paiki, before the Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar in the year 2014 being RTS /Appeal/S.R.No.226 of 2014 on the ground that though the appellants were co-owners of the property, other co-owners have sold the property to the contesting respondents. Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar by his order dtd. 22/11/2018 dismissed the case on the ground of delay and latches, by observing that the appellants can get appropriate relief from the civil court with regard to the so called rights in the property.

(2.) Mr.Amit Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by accepting the reasons assigned by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, that the entry was challenged after a period of 12 years, however has considered that behind the back of the appellants, the property has been sold behind their back resulting into loss of their share from the money received thereof. He would submit that District Collector, Gandhinagar has only remanded the matter for mutating appropriate entry, after getting details about the legal heirs of the original owner. He would further submit that it is not in dispute that the present appellants have rights in the property in question, which have been accepted by co-owners of the property. He has taken us through the order passed by learned District Collector wherein, other co-owners have accepted that the property was sold without giving any share to the present appellants. He therefore, would submit that the appeal may be admitted and appropriate further order may be passed.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9, who had purchased the property in question, has opposed this appeal. By taking us through entry no.6128, he would submit that though the names of legal heirs of Mahakorben (through whom they are claiming their share) were mutated on 19/01/2001 and entry was certified on 02/03/2001, none of the present appellants have raised any objection. The property was sold to respondent Nos.5 to 9 by registered sale deed way back on 20/11/2002 wherein one of the appellants namely Gautambhai Trikambhai Gajjar had put his signature as a witness and therefore, he was aware about the transaction. Entry with regard to sale deed was mutated as entry no.6287 on 27/11/2002. Even after 2002, none of the appellants including appellant No.1 challenged the said entry before appropriate authority and has raised dispute only in the year 2014 i.e. after a period of more than 12 years. This aspect has been rightly considered by learned Single Judge relying upon several decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble the Apex Court and therefore, he would submit that the appeal may be dismissed.