RATILAL CHUNILAL SOLANKI Vs. SHANTILAL CHUNILAL SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Entry No. 543 in revenue records with respect to the lands bearing survey Nos. 83/7/1, 83/1/9, 45, 46, 47 (Part), 48 and 50 situated in village Khaerlav, taluka Pardi (the disputed lands for convenience) as certified on behalf of the Mamlatdar (respondent No. 8 herein) by his order passed on 1 5/01/1982 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by the Collector of Valsad (respondent No. 7 herein) on 7/09/1982 in Revision Case No. 19 of 1982 as further affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State of Gujarat on 24/01/1985 is under challenge in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The entry was mutated in the name of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein in the revenue records pertaining to the disputed lands despite the objection thereagainst raised by and on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) It appears that the disputed lands originally belonged to one Chunilal Jaichand Solanki (the deceased for convenience). They stood in his name in the revenue records. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 wanted their names to be mutated in the place of the deceased on strength of a testamentary document stated to have been executed by the deceased on 12/09/1980. It appears that, in response to the notice issued under Sec. 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief), the petitioners sought inspection of the original testamentary document. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. It appears that prior thereto a notice was issued by and on behalf of the petitioners on 13/04/1981 to the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Khaerlav not to effect any mutation in the name of the alleged legatees under the Will stated to have been executed by the deceased on 12/09/1980. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the entry in the names of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 was effected in the revenue records with respect to the disputed lands. Thereupon, the petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector at Valsad. It came to be registered as R.T.S. Appeal No. 48 of 1982. By his order passed on 27/04/1982 in the aforesaid appellate proceeding, the Deputy Collector of Valsad set aside the order passed on behalf of respondent No. 8 on 1 5/01/1982 certifying the aforesaid mutation entry with respect to the disputed lands in the revenue records. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. That appears to have aggrieved respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein. They carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 7 presumably under Sec. 211 of the Code. It came to be registered as R.T.S. Revision Case No. 19 of 1982. By the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 7 on 7/09/1982 in the aforesaid revisional proceeding, the order at Annexure-D to this petition came to be set aside and the order passed by respondent No. 8 certifying the aforesaid mutation entry on 15/01/1982 came to be restored. A copy of the order passed by respondent No. 7 on 7/09/1982 is at Annexure-E to this petition. That aggrieved the petitioners herein. They, therefore, carried the matter in further revision under Rule 107 (6-A) of the Land Revenue Rules framed under the Code. By the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government in the aforesaid revisional proceeding on 24/01/1985, the revisional application made by the petitioners came to be rejected. Its copy is at Annexure- F to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-E to this petition as affirmed in further revision by the order at Annexure-F to this petition.

(3.) As rightly submitted by learned Advocate Shri Marshall for the contesting respondents, the entries in the revenue records have presumptive value with respect to the title to the properties reflected in the revenue records in view of the ruling of this Court in the case of Hussainbhai v. Saiyad Sidar, reported in [1985(1)] XXVI (1) GLR 139. There cannot be any quarrel with this principle of law. It has further been held therein that the revenue authorities are duty bound to correct the mutation entry in the revenue records in accordance with the Civil Court's decision.