MUMAN NURABHAI RAJEBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.K. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Shirish Gohil, learned AGP for respondents no.1 to 5 and Mr. Trilok Patel, learned advocate on behalf of respondents no.6.1 to 6.6.

(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/84/12 whereby the order passed by the Assistant Collector in Appeal No. 11/03 dated 31.12.2007 and the dated 31.05.2003 of Mamlatdar and ALT are quashed and set aside.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record of the petition, the following facts emerge that land bearing survey no. 255 and 260 situated village Majadar, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha and also land bearing survey no. 3/3, 6/3, 13/3, 13/9, 14/3, 48/2 of village Sherpura, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha originally belonged to joint family of the petitioner and respondents/ The record indicates that eldesst member of the said joint family one Shri Muman Noor Mohammed Rajemad undertook the exercise of looking after the agricultural lands so belonging to the family and he being the eldest son of the family and who administered and managed the land in question, only his name was shown in the revenue records. The record as contended by respondents no. 6.1 to 6.6, which is rightly believed by the Tribunal, is that by mutual understanding between the joint family members, Noor Mohammed Rajemad also got survey no.255 under the provisions of the Tenancy Act as new tenure and restricted land as he was cultivating the land as a tenant, which is based upon the order dated 14.04.1964 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No. 1 of 1963. Thus, in survey no.355, Noor Mohammed Rajemad was declared to be a tenant and as an individual, mutation entry being mutation entry no.789 came to be mutated in the revenue record and the same was certified. The record further indicates that on said demise of Noor Mohammend Rajemad in the year 1965, names of hims minor sones along with two brothers were entered in the revenue record by mutation entry no.818 on 15.08.1965. The record also further indicates that necessary statements were recorded and widow of Noor Mohammed Rajemad and his two surviving brothers Gani Rajemad and Daud Rajemad came to be recorded whose consent was obtained and widow of deceased has specifically stated that all the lands are of joint family and the deceased Noor Mohammed Rajemad was only administrator and therefore his name is only reflected in the revenue records. Entry No.818 was mutated in the year 1965 which is supported by the affidavit, which is brought on record by the learned counsel for private respondents no.6.1 to 6.6 which is not controverted. Similarly, entry no. 178 came to be mutated on 14.05.1965 after following due process of law and the same is also based on mutual agreement, which is on record by way of affidavit of the respondents. As the record unfolds, one of the brother, Daud Rajemad expired in the year 1968 and after the death of Daud Rajemad, the names of respondents no.6.1 to 6.6 came to be recorded as legal heirs by entry no.1030, which came to be mutated on 05.07.1970. It has also come on record that thereafter another brother Abdulla Daud Rajemad expired in the year 1994 and the names of private respondents no.6.1 to 6.6 came to be mutated by entry no.2184 dated 31.03.1995, which is also certified. It is the case of the private respondents which is not controverted that by family arrangement, the lands were mutually partitioned in the year 1971.