BABARBHAI MELABHAI CHAUHAN Vs. KALABHAI RAMABHAI JARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16/25.7.2011 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision No. MVV/HKP/VDD/32/2000, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners has been rejected and the order dated 29.04.2000 made by the Collector, Vadodara has been confirmed.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the lands bearing Survey No.165/1 and 165/4 of Moje Sangama, Taluka: Padra (hereinafter referred to as "the subject lands") were originally owned by Babarbhai Melabhai, the father of the petitioners. Prior to the consolidation scheme coming into effect, the petitioners' father gave the subject land by way of conditional sale to Kalabhai Ramabhai. Pursuant thereto, Mutation Entry No.446 came to be made, whereby the name of Kalabhai Ramabhai came to be entered in the revenue record. The petitioners filed a suit for redemption of the subject lands being Regular Civil Suit No.231/72. The civil suit came to be disposed of by virtue of a consent decree, whereby Survey No.165/1 was to be handed over to the petitioners and Survey No.165/4 was to be retained by Kalabhai Ramabhai, the father of the respondents No.1/1 to1/4 (hereinafter referred to as "the contesting respondents). It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the consent decree, possession of Survey No.165/1 was handed over to them and possession of Survey No.165/4 was handed over to the contesting respondents. On the basis of the aforesaid consent decree, the name of the petitioners' father came to be entered in the record of rights in respect of Survey No.165/1 vide Mutation Entry No.1338, however, the same was not certified. Later on, on the basis of the aforesaid consent decree, the names of the petitioners came to be entered vide Mutation Entry No.1455. Against the said mutation entry, the contesting respondents preferred an appeal before the Assistant Collector, Vadodara, who, by an order dated 1.7.1999, allowed the appeal and cancelled Mutation Entry No.1455 and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar to decide the same afresh. The petitioners carried the matter in revision before the Collector, however, by an order dated 29.4.2000, the revision came to be rejected. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department by way of revision under rule 108(6A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. By the impugned order, the revision application came to be rejected and the order passed by the Collector came to be confirmed.

(3.) IT was submitted that the entry in the record of rights has only presumptive value and that it is only the civil court, which can decide the rights finally. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this High Court in the case of Kureshi Hussainbhai Motibhai & ors. v. Saiyad Sidar Kesharbhai & Ors., 1985 (1) GLR 139, to submit that entry in the record of rights has only presumptive value and that it is only the civil court, which can decide the rights finally. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the civil court having decided the rights finally by virtue of the consent decree, the revenue authorities are bound to correct the entries in accordance with the decision of the civil court. Under the circumstances, the Collector and the revisional authority were not justified in setting aside the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners.