THAKORE MAFAJI SURSANGJI Vs. JOINT SECRETARY , REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The factual matrix of the present case is that the forefather of the petitioner was owner and in possession of land bearing Survey Nos. 115 and 116 mauje Godasan, District - Patan. After the demise of forefather, father of the petitioner became owner of the said land and he was cultivating the said land. That in the year 1947, the grand father of the petitioner herein executed the registered sale- deed in favour of the Thakor Chaturji Hathiji i.e. the father of the respondent no.4. That, thereafter, the tenancy proceeding came to be initiated in the year 1962 in respect of the land in question. By the order dtd. 18/5/1962, the said proceeding came to be closed by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Patan on the ground that the father of the petitioner was cultivating the land in capacity of owner. That, on 9/3/2000, the Entry No.556 came to be mutated in the revenue records on the basis of registered sale-deed executed in the year 1947 by the learned Mamlatdar along with entry for names on the basis of heirship. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about Mutation Entry No.556 dtd. 9/3/2000 only in the year 2014 and therefore, the petitioner preferred RTS Case No.17 of 2015 before the Deputy Collector, Patan for cancellation of Mutation Entry No.556 dtd. 9/3/2000. The respondent no.4 who was owner of the said land in question opposed the proceeding. By the order dtd. 11/3/2015, the Deputy Collector, Patan was pleased to allow the RTS Case No.17 of 2015 and cancelled the Mutation Entry No.556 dtd. 9/3/2000.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was cultivating the land as owner and was in possession throughout even after sale-deed executed by the grand-father of the petitioner in the year 1947. He submits that despite the registered sale, the respondent no.4 never applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. He submits that the first time in the year 2000, the respondent no.4 moved an application for entering their names by mutation on the basis of sale-deed which was executed in the year 1947. He submits that accordingly, the Entry No.556 dtd. 9/3/2000 came to be mutated. The petitioner has come to know about the said mutation entry only in the year 2014 and therefore, he has immediately obtained necessary certified copy and thereafter challenged the said Mutation Entry No.556 before the learned Deputy Collector, Patan. He submits that the Deputy Collector, Patan by cogent reasons allowed the said RTS Appeal No.17 of 2015. He submits that the Deputy Collector has examined the documents produced by both the parties while ordering cancelling Mutation Entry No.556 dtd. 9/3/2000. He submits that the learned Collector as well as learned Joint Secretary Revenue Department (SSRD) have wrongly reversed the findings of the Deputy Collector on the ground of limitation. He submits that the petitioner had cogently explained the delay of 14 years in challenging the Mutation Entry No.556 dtd. 9/3/2000. He submits that only after the death of his father, when the petitioner went to mutate his name as a heir, at that time, it was revealed that the Mutation Entry No 556 was already entered in the revenue records. He submits that there was no delay in challenging such Mutation Entry. He further submits that on perusal of the revenue records, it reveals that there was joint entry made by the learned Mamlatdar in respect of the registered sale-deed executed in the year 1947 as well as mutating names by way of heirship of the respondent no.4. He submits that the same is not permitted in law. He further submits that in respect of land in question, the Mutation Entry No.19 which related to subsequent sale-deed in favour of Kashidas Savdas Patel was also existing as well as Entry No.257 in respect of the tenancy proceeding closing the case of the tenancy and declaring the father of the petitioner to be cultivating the land in the capacity of owner were also existing on record when the Mutation Entry No.556 dtd. 9/3/2000 came to be effected. He therefore submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed and the order passed by the learned Collector as well as learned SSRD be set aside.