SCA/5849/1988 of RAMUBHAI D. PATEL, Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 27 September 1995

ORAL JUDGMENT

The order passed by the Assistant Collector of ChoryasiPrant at Surat (Respondent No.4 herein) on 21st October 1985 asaffirmed in revision by the common order passed by the Collectorof Surat (Respondent No.3 herein) on 2nd November 1987 interalia in Revision Application No. 264 of 1986 as furtheraffirmed in further revision by the order passed by theAdditional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department atAhmedabad (Respondent No.2 herein) on 23rd May 1988 is under challenge in his petition under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India. By this impugned order, Respondent No.4cancelled Mutation Entry No. 532 of 1st January 1984 withrespect to Survey No. 50/2 (Part) situated at Village RundhTaluka Choryasi District Surat ('the disputed land' forconvenience).

2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrowcompass. The disputed land was of the ownership of petitionerNo.1. He sold it to petitioner No.2 by a registered sale deedexecuted on 15th October 1982. Its copy is at Annexure A tothis petition. Pursuant thereto, an application was made formutation of entry pertaining to the disputed land in the Recordof Rights. Apropos, Entry No. 532 of 1st January 1984 was madein the Record of Rights with respect to the disputed land. Acopy of the said entry is at Annexure B to this petition. Itappears to have come to the notice of respondent No.4 herein.He appears to have found it not according to law. A show-causenotice thereupon came to be issued on 4th October 1985 callingupon petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause why the said entryshould not be cancelled. A copy of the aforesaid show-causenotice is at Annexure C to this petition. Petitioners Nos. 1and 2 filed their reply thereto on 21st October 1985. Its copyis at Annexure D to this petition. After hearing the parties,by his order passed on 21st October 1985, respondent No.4cancelled the aforesaid mutation entry. Its copy is at AnnexureE to this petition. That aggrieved petitioners Nos. 1 and 2herein. They carried the matter in revision before respondentNo.3. It came to be registered as Revision Application No. 264of 1986. It was heard along with certain other allied matters.By his common order passed on 2nd November 1987, respondent No.3rejected the aforesaid revisional application by petitionersNos. 1 and 2 herein. A copy of the aforesaid order passed byrespondent No.3 is at Annexure F to this petition. Thataggrieved petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 herein. They thereforecarried the matter further in revision before respondent No. 2.By his order passed on 23rd May 1988 in the aforesaid revisionalapplication, respondent No.2 rejected it. Its copy is atAnnexure G to this petition. That aggrieved petitioners Nos. 1and 2 herein. They have therefore moved this court by means ofthis petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure Eto this petition as affirmed in revision by the order atAnnexure F to this petition as further affirmed in revision bythe order at Annexure G to this petition.

3. It appears that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 sold thedisputed land and certain other parcels of land to petitioners3, 4 and 5. By the order passed by this court in CivilApplication No. 2346 of 1995 today, petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and5 have been impleaded as parties petitioners to this petition.

4. Apart from the fact that the proceeding for cancellationof the mutation entry made on 1st January 1984 was initiatedmore than 18 months after that date, which action is notpermissible in law in view of the binding ruling of the SupremeCourt in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha andOthers reported in AIR 1969 SC 1297, this petition can bedisposed of on some other ground also.

5. The basis of the order at Annexure E to this petition isthe apprehension that the holding of petitioner No.1 might be inexcess of the ceiling limit under the Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act' for brief). As transpiringfrom the order at Annexure G to this petition, the CompetentAuthority had processed the form filed by petitioner No.1 in theprescribed form under sec. 6(1) of the Act, and petitioner No.1was required to prefer an appeal against the order passed by theCompetent Authority in that proceeding. It transpires from theappellate order of the Urban Land Tribunal at Annexure J to thispetition that the appeal preferred by petitioner No.1 againstthe order of the Competent Authority was accepted and it wasdeclared that the holding of petitioner No.1 was not in excessof the ceiling limit. The appellate order at Annexure J to thispetition has not been carried further by way of any proceedingeither before this court or before any other forum. In thatview of the matter, it has become final in view of Sec.33(3) ofthe Act. It thus becomes clear that the basis of the order atAnnexure E to this petition has been removed. No reason wouldtherefore exist for cancellation of the mutation entry atAnnexure B to this petition.

6. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat the impugned order at Annexure E to this petition asaffirmed in revision by the order at Annexure F to this petitionas further affirmed in revision by the order at Annexure G tothis petition cannot be sustained in law. It has to be quashedand set aside.

7. In the result, this petition is accepted. The orderpassed by the Assistant Collector of Choryasi Prant at Surat on21st October 1985 at Annexure E to this petition as affirmed inrevision by the common order passed by the Collector of Surat on2nd November 1987 inter alia in Revision Application No. 264 of1986 at Annexure F to this petition as further affirmed infurther revision by the order passed by the Additional ChiefSecretary (Appeals), Revenue Department at Ahmedabad (RespondentNo.2 herein) on 23rd May 1988 at Annexure G to this petition isquashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute withno order as to costs.