Vipul M. Pancholi, J.:— This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have prayed that the order dated 08.11. 2 016 passed in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/JNR/4/2012 by respondent No. 4 Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) (‘SSRD’ for short) be quashed and set aside.
2. Heard Mr. Viral V. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were the joint owners of the agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 1329 Paiki 4 admeasuring 1 Hector, 87 Are and 17 Sq. meters situated at Jamnagar City. It is stated that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were minor at the relevant point of time and, therefore, the father of the petitioners had filed Civil Misc. Application No. 80 of 2005 under the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, for the purpose of selling of the land in question. The Presiding Officer passed an order on 22.12.2005 whereby the said application was allowed granting permission to sell the land in question on certain terms and conditions. It is submitted that one of the conditions of the said order was that the father of the petitioners has to deposit an amount of consideration in the Nationalized Bank in Fixed Deposit till the minor children become major. It is further stated that the father of the petitioners sold the land in question to respondent No. 3 and the registered Sale Deed was executed, pursuant to which, Entry No. 710 was mutated in the revenue record on 13.07.2009. The concerned Mamlatdar issued notice under Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, to the petitioners. At La that time, the petitioners raised objections. However, the objections raised by the petitioners were not considered by the Mamlatdar and, thereby, the entry in question is certified. The said order of the Mamlatdar was challenged before the Deputy Collector and, thereafter, the Collector. Ultimately, the Revision was preferred before the SSRD. The SSRD by an impugned order dated 08.11.2 016 rejected the Revision Application filed by the petitioners and, therefore, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners mainly contended that the order passed by the concerned District Judge in the application filed by the father of the petitioners has not been complied with and, therefore, Entry No. 710 is required to be cancelled. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also filed Special Civil Suit No. 167 of 2010 before the competent Court with regard to their shares in the property in question. It is submitted that when the petitioners were minor at the relevant point of time, the father of the petitioners ought not to have sold the land to respondent No. 3 and when respondent No. 3 has not complied with the conditions imposed by the District Judge in the order dated 22.12.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Application no. 80 of 2005, the disputed entry is to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed this application and pointed out, that the SSRD has specifically observed in the impugned order that the father of the petitioners has accepted the consideration on behalf of the petitioners. The concerned District Court has granted permission to the father of the petitioners to sell the land in question on certain terms and conditions. It is further submitted that for the rights of the petitioners in the land in question, proceedings are initiated by them before the concerned Civil Court by filing Special Civil Suit No. 167 of 2010. The said Civil Suit is still pending. Thus, it is contended that the respondent authorities have not committed any error while rejecting the request of the petitioners. He, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed.
6. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The material placed on record is also verified. It is revealed that pursuant to the permission granted by the concerned District Judge in the application filed by the father of the petitioners under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the land in question was sold by the father of the petitioners and the amount of consideration is also received by him on behalf of the petitioners. Sale Deed was executed on 29.12.2005. The grievance of the petitioners that the entire amount of consideration was not paid by respondent No. 3 cannot be prima-facie believed, at this stage. No proceedings were initiated immediately by the petitioners or their father before the competent Court and the Civil Suit is filed only in the year 2010. The said Civil Suit is still pending. In the said Civil Suit, the concerned Civil Court will determine the rights of the parties. However, the entry made in the revenue record is for the fiscal purpose only and when the respondent authorities have given the finding against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding. The entry is made in the revenue record on the basis of the registered Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent No. 3 and, therefore, no error is committed by the respondent authorities.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.