KESARBHAI TAIYABHAI DAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 9th May, 2017 passed by the S.S.R.D at Ahmedabad, by which, the S.S.R.D rejected the revision application filed by the applicants herein, thereby affirming the order of the Collector, Gir Somnath dated 1st September, 2014.

(2.) The dispute between the parties pertains to the land bearing Khata No.295, Revenue Survey No.56, paiki 2, situated at Mouje Talala, Taluka: Talala, District: Gir Somnath. The original owner of the land in question was one Kesharbhai Taiyabbhai Dal. The wife of Kesharbhai Taiyabbhai Dal passed away in 2011, whereas Kesharbhai Taiyabbhai Dal passed away on 13th April, 2014. The respondent No.5 herein happens to be the son of the sister of the wife of late Kesharbhai Taiyabbhai Dal. The respondent No.5 claims that as his Masa had no issues, he was residing with them and he was being treated like a son. It is his case that late Kesharbhai Taiyabbhai Dal had made an oral gift (Hiba) in his favour. Such oral gift was in the presence of the witnesses. It is also his case that prior to the oral gift, the possession was also handed over to him and he relies on one document, which is at page-120, i.e., the possession receipt. It appears that on the demise of Kesharbhai Taiyabbhai Dal, the applicants herein got their names mutated in the record of rights as the class-I heirs. The mutation of the names of the applicants in the record of rights led to the mutation of an entry bearing No.9798 dated 10th June, 2014. The respondent No.5 herein raised objections as regards the mutation of the entry No.9798 and having regard to the objections, the Collector, by his order dated 1st September, 2014, cancelled the entry. This order passed by the Collector came to be challenged before the S.S.R.D and the S.S.R.D also thought fit to reject the revision application. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the revenue authorities, the applicants have come up with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the authorities committed any error in passing the impugned orders. I take notice of the fact that the respondent No.5 filed a Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2015 in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Veraval seeking declaration and injunction. The declaration to the effect that he had become the owner of the land in question on the strength of the oral gift deed, which is permissible under the Mohammedan Law and that he is in possession of the property and his possession should not be disturbed. It appears that in the civil suit filed by the respondent No.5, a settlement was arrived at between the parties, that includes the applicants herein. In the wake of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the civil judge passed a consent decree dated 18th May, 2015. The decree drawn by the civil court reads as under;