[1.0] As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions and as such they arise out of common order dated 05.02.1994 passed by the learned Revisional Authority – learned Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in SRD No.7 of 1993, both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order. [2.0] At the outset it is required to be noted that as such the dispute is arising out of the RTS proceedings and entry in the revenue record with respect to the land bearing Survey No.207/4 admeasuring 18 Acres 28 Gunthas; land bearing Survey No.184/10 admeasuring 12 Acres 12 Gunthas and land bearing Survey No.184/18 admeasuring 1 Acre 10 Gunthas situated at village Vitthalapur, Taluka Viramgam. It appears that the respective petitioners herein claim to be the owner of land bearing Survey No.184/10 admeasuring 12 Acres 12 Gunthas and land bearing Survey No.184/18 admeasuring 1 Acre 10 Gunthas as well as land bearing Survey No.207/4 admeasuring 18 Acres 28 Gunthas on the basis of the order passed by the competent Authority under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It appears and which is not in dispute that so far as the land bearing survey No.207/4 is concerned, there was already a decree dated 29.11.1969 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Viramgam in Regular Civil Suit No.71 of 1965 confirmed by the learned Appellate Court by which the original plaintiff – the predecessor – Soma Karman was held to be the owner. It is also not in dispute that as such with respect to the land bearing Survey No.207/4, the name of the original plaintiffs – petitioners have been mutated in the revenue record by way of mutation entry No.1916, which is confirmed upto this Court by order dated 18.04.1995 passed in Special Civil Application No.13665 of 1994. Therefore, as such with respect to the land bearing Survey No.207/4 situated at Vitthalapur, Taluka Viramgam, the entry No.1916 has been confirmed upto this Court and it has attained the finality, the said mutation entry No.1916 should prevail and if any entry in the revenue record contrary is there, it should be ignored for all purposes.
[3.0] It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that so far as rest of the land bearing survey No.184/10 admeasuring 12 Acres 12 Gunthas and land bearing Survey No.184/18 admeasuring 1 Acre 10 Gunthas is concerned, Soma Karman has become the owner under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act and despite the same in the revenue record the name of the contesting respondents is mutated by way of entry No.1574.
[3.1] On the other hand, the contesting respondents also claim to be the owner and in occupation and possession of the said land. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioners that as such they are in occupation and possession of not only the land bearing Survey No.207/4 admeasuring 18 Acres 28 Gunthas but they are also in occupation and possession of the land bearing No.184/10 admeasuring 12 Acres 12 Gunthas and land bearing Survey No.184/18 admeasuring 1 Acre 10 Gunthas situated at Vitthalapur, Taluka Viramgam. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the entry by the Talati cum Mantri / Mamlatdar in the revenue record that the contesting respondents are in occupation of the aforesaid lands is illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Thus, there is a serious dispute with respect to, who is in actual occupation and possession of the aforesaid lands and even with respect to the title of the land bearing Survey No.184/10 admeasuring 12 Acres 12 Gunthas and land bearing Survey No.184/18 admeasuring 1 Acre 10 Gunthas, which is to be resolved by the Civil Court only. It cannot be disputed and as per the settled proposition of law, entry in the revenue record does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of a person in whose favour the entry is made solely on the basis of his name being mutated in the revenue record and entry in the revenue record is only for fiscal purpose. Any aggrieved person is required to file a suit before the Civil Court for establishing his/their rights and on the basis of the decision of the Civil Court necessary mutation entry can be made.
[4.0] Under the circumstances and considering the above, present Special Civil Applications are disposed of with following observations and directions.
1. It is observed and directed that so far as the mutation entry No.1916 with respect to the land bearing No.207/4 admeasuring 18 Acres and 28 Gunthas of the land, which has been confirmed upto this Court is concerned, the same has attained finality and the same shall prevail and any mutation entry and/or entry in the revenue record contrary to the same with respect to the land bearing Survey No.207/4 admeasuring 18 Acres 28 Gunthas shall be ignored for all purposes i.e. so far as the entry in the revenue record is concerned.
2. So far as the mutation entry No.1574 with respect to the land bearing Survey No.184/10 admeasuring 12 Acres 12 Gunthas and land bearing Survey No.184/18 admeasuring 1 Acre 10 Gunthas is concerned, it is observed that the same shall be for fiscal purpose only and it does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the persons in whose favour such an entry is made solely on the basis of their names being mutated in the revenue record and either of the parties and/or even the petitioners can file the substantive suit for establishing his/their title over the aforesaid lands and as and when such proceedings are initiated before the Civil Court, the same be considered by the concerned Civil Court in accordance with law and on merits and without in anyway being influenced by the entry in the revenue record and necessary entry with respect to the land bearing No.184/10 admeasuring 12 Acres 12 Gunthas and land bearing Survey No.184/18 admeasuring 1 Acre 10 Gunthas shall be made on the basis of the decision of the Civil Court.
3. Now, so far as the entry in the revenue record with respect to occupation and possession and/or dispute with respect to occupation and possession of aforesaid three lands is concerned, it is observed that it is ultimately for the Civil Court to consider who is in actual possession and occupation of the land and as and when any proceedings are initiated with respect to the same, making a grievance with respect to the actual occupation and possession of the respective lands, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits without in anyway being influenced by the entry in the revenue record with respect to mutation.
[5.0] With this, both these Special Civil Applications are disposed of.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) Ajay