1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties for final disposal of the petition. Learned advocate, Shri P.J.Vyas, for the petitioners stated at the outset that respondent No. 6/1 to 6/4 are not contesting parties and it would, therefore, not be necessary to serve notice of this petition on them.
2. This petition is directed against an order dated 18.7.2007 passed by Joint Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat. By the said order, Joint Secretary was pleased to reject the revision application of the petitioners and was pleased to confirm an order dated 8.10.2004 passed by Collector, Bharuch which in turn confirmed an order dated 8.3.2004 passed by Deputy Collector, Ankleshwar.
3. Issue pertains to entries in the revenue record of land bearing block No.289/3 of Village Gadkhol, Tal. Ankleshwar.
4. As per the case of the petitioners, the land originally belonged to predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, namely, Shri Becharbhai Gopalbhai and his brother Bhagwanbhai Gopalbhai. The land was acquired by the Government for public purpose. However, the Government found no use of the land and returned the same to original land owners. It is the case of the petitioners that the land was reverted back to both the brothers. There is some dispute about this aspect raised by the contesting respondent and he contends that the price was paid by Bhagwanbhai Gopalbhai alone in the year 1997 to the Government and therefore, the land was returned to Bhagwanbhai. Be that as it may, name of Bhagwanbhai Gopalbhai and legal heirs of deceased Becharbhai Gopalbhai i.e. the present petitioners were entered in the revenue records.
5. It is also the case of the petitioners that subsequent to the said developments, through a family arrangement, Bhagwanbhai Gopalbhai relinquished his right in the land in question and entry No.7374 was mutated.
5.1 Apparently, on the basis of power of attorney said to have been given by Shri Bhagwanbhai Gopalbhai, the attorney sold the land in question to present respondent No.5 through registered Sale-deed dated 27th April, 2001. On the basis of this registered Sale-deed, respondent No.5 sought to enter his name in the revenue records. He also challenged entry No.7374 by virtue of which the name of Bhagwanbhai Gopalbhai was deleted.
5.2 It is the case of the petitioners that without explaining delay by the said respondent No.5, Deputy Collector accepted his appeal by his order dated 8.3.2004 and not only set aside entry No.7374, effectively also ordered deletion of the name of the petitioners from the revenue records thereby setting aside revenue entry No.7063 by which the names of the petitioners were entered in the records.
6. It is not in dispute that respondent No.5 initially filed Civil Suit No.55 of 2003 but later on withdrew the same on 14.4.2007. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have filed Special Civil Suit No.224 of 2004 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharch in which the petitioners have challenged the above mentioned Sale-deed and that such suit is pending.
7. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the power of attorney holder of Bhagwanbhai Gopalbhai had no right to sell the land once he had relinquished his right from land in question. It was contended that at any rate, Deputy Collector could not have disturbed entry No.7063 entering the names of the petitioners when such entry was never in challenge.
8. On the other hand, learned advocate, Shri A.J.Patel, appearing for contesting respondent No.5 submitted that civil litigation is pending and the Authorities, therefore, committed no error in passing the impugned orders making the entries subject to final outcome of the Civil Suit.
9. I have also heard learned AGP Shri J.K.Shah for the State.
10. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, it would appear that respondent No.5 is claiming title over the subject matter land through a registered sale-deed. Though, such sale-deed is challenged before the Civil Court, as noted, so far no interim order has been passed in the suit. In that view of the matter, subject to the all questions such as whether Bhagwanbhai had relinquished his right from the land in question or not and whether sale of the land by his attorney was valid or not, respondent No.5 would be justified in requesting Revenue Authorities to reflect the sale-deed in the land in question. However, at present, I do not find any justification for the Revenue Authorities to have the names of the present petitioners deleted from the revenue records. Prima-facie, it appears that even if it is ultimately found that Bhagwanbhai had not relinquished his right, at this stage, there is nothing on the record to have the names of the petitioners deleted from the revenue records.
11. In that view of the matter, I find that the authorities below committed a serious error in passing the impugned orders which effectively amounts to deleting the names of the petitioners from the revenue records of the land in question.
12. In my view, therefore, the names of the petitioners must be restored. Respondent No.5, may also insist on the sale-deed being reflected in the revenue records qua the interest of deceased Bhagwanbhai. All these, of course, shall be subject to final outcome of the pending litigation, namely, Special Civil Suit No.224 of 2004 filed by the petitioners herein.
13. In view of the above discussions, impugned orders passed by Joint Secretary, dated 18.7.2007, passed by Collector, Bharuch dated 8.10.2004 and Deputy Collector, dated 8.3.2004 are quashed. Mamlatdar shall carry out necessary changes in the revenue records pursuant to above order which shall be subject to outcome of the civil litigation as already mentioned.
14. In the result, petition is disposed of. Direct service permitted.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) ashish// Top