ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 4
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. As the issue raised in the above noted appeals is common and they are arisen out of the common judgment, they have been heard and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, from the own submission made by Mr. N.K.Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, the competent authority is required to conduct the proceedings in the mode and manner provided in the Statute itself.
3. Reading of Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, as extracted in the judgment impugned, it is more than evident that the words "any person" used in sub-section (3) of Section 135D can only be interpreted by reading the entire provision itself. We may note that Section 135D provides the mode and manner in which an entry in the revenue record is to be made and certified by the designated officer. Sub-section (1) (b)(ii) states that upon completion of verification, the necessary entries shall be made in the register of mutations in the manner as may be prescribed and the notice of the transaction under section 135D shall be served to the persons interested therein. Sub-section (2) states that whenever a designated officer makes an entry, either manually or electronically in the register of mutations, he shall at the same time intimate to all persons appearing from the record of rights or register of mutations to be interested in the mutation and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein in the manner as may
Page 2 of 4
be prescribed. Sub-section (4) says that orders disposing of objections entered in the register of disputed cases shall be recorded, either manually or electronically, in the register of mutations, after disposing it within the period as may be prescribed for this purpose and the same may be intimated to the concerned person having interest in the said mutation. Sub- section (5) further states that where no objection is raised by any person having interest in the transaction, either manually or electronically, within a period of thirty days, the mutation entry shall be certified electronically through an automated process or manually, as the case may be. After reading the said sub- sections of Section 135D when we read sub-section (3), it states that it shall be the duty of the designated officer to enter the particulars of the objection if any received from any person either manually or electronically, in a register of disputed cases and to give written acknowledgment of the receipt of such objection to the person making it in the same manner. The words "any person" used in sub-section (3) of Section 135D, cannot be interpreted in the manner as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant to include "any person on the earth"
having interest in the mutation or the property in question. The words "any person" used in sub-section (3) of Section 135D, has to be interpreted by reading all the said provision as a whole which provides that the designated officer shall be required to deal with the objection of any person interested or concerned person having interest in the mutation, on an objection filed by him to the proposed mutation, after completion of verification before certifying the entries in accordance with the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 135D.
Page 3 of 4
4. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant herein has no right, title or interest in the land in question. The act of the respondent authorities in issuing notice to the petitioner on the objection raised by the appellant herein during the mutation proceedings, therefore, is found to be illegal. For the reasoning given above in addition to the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any merits in the appeal. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has while allowing the writ petitions, quashed the notice issued to the petitioner on the objection raised by the appellant and has noted that it was open for the respondent authorities to independently examine the validity of the transactions.
In view of above discussion, we dismiss the appeals being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN
Page 4 of 4