RAMESHBHAI LAXMANBHAI SAKARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dtd. 25/4/2019 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SAT/233/2018 and order dtd. 23/10/2018 passed by respondent no.2 in RTS/Revision Application No.43/2017 as well as order dtd. 15/5/2017 passed by respondent no.3 in RTS/Appeal No.329/2016.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this petition is as under:- 2.1 That Kiritbhai Chambaklal Vairagivala and others were the original owners of the land admeasuring 3368 sq. mtrs. Said land comprises of Sub Plot No. 1 - 1815.90 sq. mtrs., Sub Plot No.3 - 280.20 sq. mtrs. & Sub Plot No. 2-3087.80 sq. mtrs. Present petitioner is concerned with Sub Plot No. 2-3087.80 sq. mtrs. only. 2.2 Petitioner had purchased Sub Plot No.2-3087.80 sq.mtrs., vide registered Sale Deed on 28/11/2003. Said Sale Deed was executed by Kiritbhal Chambaklal Vairagivala. Sheetal Manufacturing Company, a partnership firm through its partner Vallabhbhai Laljibhai Kakadiya-respondent no.5 herein had purchased 2 properties from Kiritbhai Chambaklal Vairagivala, (i) Sub Plot No. 1 - 1815.90 sq. mtrs on 28/11/2003 and (ii) Sub Plot No.3 - 280.20 sq. mtrs. Pursuant to the aforesaid Sale Deeds, mutation Entry No. 26 was mutated on 13/9/2004. At that relevant point of time i.e. mutating the entry error was committed. The property with which respondent no. 5 was not concerned still his name was mutated. In other words, name of respondent no. 5 was mutated in the land which the said respondent has never purchased. To put it differently, in the revenue record against the land of the petitioner the name of respondent no. 5 was reflected. The Mutation Entry No. 26 was certified on 18/10/2004. 2.3 Another sale transaction took place in respect of Sub plot 1 and 3. Pursuant to it also entry came to be mutated. Said mutation entry No.211 was also certified. Respondent no.2 thereafter vide order dtd. 30/3/2008 granted revised NA permission for the purpose of commercial use with respect to 1761/1 paiki, 1761/2, 1762, 1763, 1764 admeasuring 2096.10 sq. mtrs. In the revenue record order of revised NA came to be posted vide Mutation Entry no. 758. 2.4 Since the document with respect to registered Sale Deed no.6885 dtd. 28/11/2003 executed by Kiritbhai Chambaklal Vairagivala and others in favour of the petitioner with respect to City Survey No. 1762, 1763, 1764 and 1765 of Plot No.3 paiki admeasuring 3087.80 sq.mtrs was pending before the Sub-Registrar Office with respect to stamp duty issue, it was later on registered vide no.4306 dtd. 3/3/2011. The petitioner was under the impression that the concerned authority must have made entry with respect to the registered sale deed no.6866 dtd. 28/11/2003 as per the report of the Sub-Registrar. In the year 2016, the petitioner came to know that a mistake that has crept in while mutating Mutation Entry No.26. Thus, the petitioner preferred RTS/Appeal No. 320/16 before the Deputy Collector, City Prant respondent no.3 herein challenging the Mutation Entry No. 26 dtd. 13/9/2004. In the appeal, it was clearly explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. However, the respondent no.3 vide order dtd. 15/5/2017 passed in RTS/Appeal No. 329/16 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay. It is observed that the Civil Suit was pending since 2010 and therefore it is not believable that the petitioner was not having the knowledge about Entry No. 26 dtd. 13/9/2004. It is pertinent to note that the Regular Civil Suit No.264 of 2010 filed by the petitioner before the Court of 9 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat against the Sheetal Manufacturing Company, partnership firm of the respondent no.5, Surat Municipal Corporation, respondent no.5 and 6 that the private respondents have utilized FSI of the petitioner for the construction of his property. Thus easement rights of the petitioner are affected and therefore sought a declaration that the private respondents do not have any right for any illegal construction on the FSI of the petitioner. It was further prayed to restrain the private respondents from making illegal construction on the FSI of the petitioner and sought direction against the Surat Municipal Corporation to remove the illegal construction made by the private respondents. However, the learned Civil Judge vide order dtd. 11/12/2015 rejected the suit filed by the petitioner. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dtd. 15/5/2017 passed by respondent no.3 in RTS/Appeal No. 329/16, the petitioner preferred Revision Application before respondent no.2 being RTS/Revision Application No. 43/17. However, the respondent no.2 also vide order dtd. 23/10/2018 rejected the RTS/Revision Application No.43/17 filed by the petitioner and confirmed order dtd. 15/5/2017 passed by the respondent no.3 in RTS/Appeal No.329/16. The respondent no.2 rejected the revision application on the ground of delay and it was observed that the petitioner was aware about the Mutation Entry No. 26 dtd. 13/9/2004 from the beginning as the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceeding against respondent no.5 with respect to the registered Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent no.5 being Tenancy Case No.17/2004, however, said proceeding was dropped by the Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dtd. 31/8/2004. Against the said order petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 4/2004 and the said appeal was rejected by the Deputy Collector vide order dtd. 18/2/2009. Against said order dtd. 18/2/2009 the petitioner preferred revision application before the Gujarat Land Revenue Tribunal being Revision Application No. TEN/BAS/38/09(3). The Gujarat Land Revenue Tribunal rejected said Revision Application No. TEN/BAS/38/09(3) vide order dtd. 6/4/2016. Against order dtd. 6/4/2016 petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 13476/2016 before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court also vide order dtd. 6/7/2017 rejected Special Civil Application No. 13476/2016. 2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dtd. 23/10/2018 passed by respondent no.2 in RTS/Revision Application No. 43/17, the petitioner preferred Revision Application before respondent no.1 being Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SAT/233/2018. The petitioner also produced all the relevant documents before all the respondent authorities. However, respondent no.1 also vide order dtd. 25/4/2019 rejected the Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SAT/233/2018 filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay and confirmed the order dtd. 23/10/2018 passed by the respondent no.2 in RTS/Revision Application No. 43/17 and observed that the petitioner is required to make correction in the registered Sale Deed. Thus, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dtd. 25/4/2019 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/SAT/233/2018, the order dtd. 23/10/2018 passed by the respondent no.2 in RTS/Revision Application No. 43/17 and the order dtd. 15/5/2017 passed by the respondent no.3 in RTS/Appeal No. 329/16, petitioner has filed present petition.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Viral Shah for the petitioner, learned AGP Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for respondent no.1-State and learned advocate Mr.Jayesh Patel for respondent nos.5 and 6.