PATHAN KALEKHAN LALDINKHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Petlad dated Deputy Collector, Petlad dated 10. 6. 1999 in RTS Appeal No. 122 of 1998; order passed by the Collector, Anand dated 2/4/2003 in RTS Revision No. 38 of 1999 and the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) dated 21/8/2008 in Revision No. MVV/hkp/anand/22/2003. '

(2.) THE dispute is with respect to the mutation entry in the revenue record which according to the petitioner, he has purchased by registered sale deed. Considering the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through P. O. A. Holder Ashok J. Patel V. Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel and Ors. reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2233, the name of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed is required to be mutated unless the sale deed/ transaction in favour of the petitioner is challenged before the Civil Court. Considering the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court revenue entry does not confer any right title or interest in favour of the person whose name is mutated in the record and is only for the fiscal purpose i. e. for the purpose of collecting revenue. If there is any dispute with respect to right, title or interest of any person in the disputed land in question the same is required to be resolved only by the Civil Court. The Revenue Department has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of title in a proceedings under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules i. e. to mutation entry.

(3.) UNDER the circumstances and having heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Petlad dated 10. 6. 1999 in RTS Appeal No. 122 of 1998; order passed by the Collector, Anand dated 2/4/2003 in RTS Revision No. 38 of 1999 and the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) dated 21/8/2008 in Revision No. MVV/hkp/anand/22/2003 are hereby quashed and set aside and necessary entry in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 30. 4. 1988 shall be made in the revenue record. However, it is observed and it is clarified that solely on the basis of the entry in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner, petitioner shall not claim any right title or interest and by mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue record, it cannot be said that the transaction / sale deed in favour of the petitioner is declared valid. The same is required to be considered by the Civil Court in an appropriate proceeding initiated by the aggrieved party/ person. In the present case, Shri Chhaya, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3-contesting respondent has stated at the Bar that as such the contesting respondent is to file the Civil Suit challenging the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Be that it may, with above observation and with a further observation that parties to abide by the decision of the Civil Court, if any dispute raise, present Special Civil Application is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and to make necessary mutation entry in favour of the petitioner as stated above. Rule is made is absolute to the aforesaid extent.