Date : 07/09/2017 ORALCOMMON ORDER
[1] As the issues raised in both the captioned petitions are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of this common order.
[2] For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No. 15013 of 2017 is treated as the lead matter.
[3] By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 8th September, 2016 passed by the Special Secretary of the Revenue Department (Appeals), by which the C/SCA/15013/2017 ORDER SSRD rejected the Revision Application filed by the applicant herein, thereby affirming the orders passed by the Collector and the Dy. Collector respectively.
[4] The dispute between the parties pertains to mutation of two entries bearing Nos. 4574 and 4289 in the revenue record of rights with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 106 situated at Vadavan, Taluka- Deesa, District- Banaskantha.
[5] The material on record reveals that the applicant herein succeeded before the Deputy Collector, Deesa, in mutation to the entries referred to above. The Deputy Collector in its order dated 11th April, 2014 has observed as under:- That upon considering the submissions made by the parties and perusal of the record , it appears mutation entry no. 4574 has been entered based on the decree dt. 11-11-10 of the Civil Judge, Deesa which decree has been verified by the Circle Officer, Deesa and then has been certified. Similarly, mutation entry no. 4289 has been entered based on the decree dt. 19-6-74 of the Court which has been verified and certified by the Circle Officer, Deesa. That as per decree dt. 19-6-72 recorded in the mutation entry no. 4289, the decree was required to be registered with the Sub Registrar office but has not been registered and it appears that after long time the mutation entry has been entered based on the decree of the Court and proper course has not been followed. Moreover, section 135 D notice has not been served and therefore there is sufficient cause to condone the delay which has occurred in filing appeal. In these facts, following order is passed. ORDER. The appeal of the appellant is allowed and the mutation entries no. 4574 and 4289 certified by the Circle Officer, Deesa are cancelled. Also the interim injunction granted is hereby order to be vacated and if necessary, the original decree of the Court may once again be asked to be produced and the Mamlatdar, Deesa, is directed to make entry after following due procedure of law. C/SCA/15013/2017 ORDER
[6] Although the applicant succeeded before the Deputy Collector, yet he thought fit to challenge the order for one simple reason. According to Mr. N.V. Gandhi, the learned counsel, the Deputy Collector ought not to have stated in the operative part of the order that it would be open for the parties concerned to get the entries mutated afresh after following the due process of law.
[7] For the purpose of challenging this part of the order, the applicant went before the Collector. Having not succeeded before the Collector, he approached the SSRD, and the SSRD also rejected both the Revision Applications.
[8] Mr. N.V. Gandhi, the learned counsel pointed out that there has been some development in the matter. Pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Collector, the decree of the Civil Court was registered with the Sub- Registrar, and on the strength of that the revenue entries, have been mutated and certified.
[9] The client of Mr. Gandhi intends to challenge that part of the action on the part of the Sub-Registrar in registering the decree after a long period of time, and thereafter, mutating the entries in the record of rights. Well if the applicant wants to challenge the action on the part of the Sub-Registrar in the registration of decree passed by the Civil Court, it is open for him to do so in accordance with law. C/SCA/15013/2017 ORDER [10] However, I do not find any error as such in the impugned order warranting any interference in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [11] With liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, as referred to above, both the petitions are disposed of. (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) M KUMAR