Allowed

Veersingh Bhavanbhai Rathod v. Collector Bhavnagar

Gujarat HC26 Jun 2014SCA/3093/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revenue orders that removed petitioners (brothers) from a joint family lease entry and added the deceased leaseholder's sons. The High Court held the property was joint family land, restored the original 1968 entry, and quashed the lower authority orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revenue orders quashed; original 1968 survey entry confirming joint leasehold rights for petitioners and respondents restored.

Veersingh Bhavanbhai Rathod Vs Collector Bhavnagar — Succession and Inheritance | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/3093/2012 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3093 of 2012

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA : Sd/-

¶6

=======================================================

¶7

`1`	`Whether Reporters`	`of Local Pap`	`ers`	`No`
	`may be allowed` `judgment?`	`to see`	`the`
`2`	`To be referred to` `not?`	`the Reporter`	`or`	`No`
`3`	`Whether their Lo`	`rdships wish`	`to`	`No`
	`see the fair` `judgment?`	`copy of`	`the`
`4`	`Whether this ca`	`se involves`	`a`
	`substantial quest`	`ion of law as`	`to`
	`the` `interpretat`	`ion` `of`	`the`	`No`
	`Constitution of` `any order made the`	`India, 1950` `reunder?`	`or`
`5`	`Whether it is to` `the civil judge?`	`be circulated`	`to`	`No`

¶8

=======================================================

¶9

VEERSINGH BHAVANBHAI RATHOD & 1....Petitioner(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

COLLECTOR BHAVNAGAR & 4....Respondent(s)

¶12

=======================================================

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

MR.JS SADHWANI for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR BHARAT VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2

¶15

MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA for the Respondent(s) No. 3

¶16

MR HS MUNSHAW for the Respondent(s) No. 5

¶17

MR SUNIL C PATEL for the Respondent(s) No. 4

¶18

=======================================================

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶20

Date : 26/06/2014

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners

¶23

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶24

Page 1 of 8

¶25

C/SCA/3093/2012 JUDGMENT

¶26

challenging the order passed in Revision
Application NO.11/2002 dated 30.08.2011 by the
Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad
and also consequently to quash and set aside the
order passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar and the
City Survey Superintendent. It is also prayed that
entry which has been made on 06.03.1968 may be
confirmed in view of the background of the facts
stated in the petition.

¶27

2.Heard learned advocate, Shri J.S. Sadhwani for the
petitioners, learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for the
respondent nos.1 and 2, learned advocate, Shri
Gaurav Chudasam for the respondent no.3, learned
advocate, Shri Sunil Patel for the respondent no.4
and learned advocate, Shri H.S. Munshaw for the
respondent no.5

¶28

3. Learned advocate, Shri Sadhwani for the

¶29

petitioners referred to the background of the
facts which has a chequered history with regard to
the tossing the matter from one authority to

¶30

another. Learned advocate, Shri Sadhwani has
referred to the papers including the orders as
well as the affidavit produced at Annexure-A and
submitted that the petitioner no.3 himself has

¶31

Page 2 of 8

¶32

C/SCA/3093/2012 JUDGMENT

¶33

filed an affidavit referring to the background,
which is not disputed, which is also stated in the
orders of the authorities. He submitted that land
belonged to the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation,
which was granted on lease to the father of the
respondent nos.3 and 4 on payment of the charges
(sukhadi) in an auction. It is also stated in this
affidavit by the petitioner no.3 that the payment
was made from out of the common pool and it was
not from out of the separate independent income of
the deceased, Vashrambhai. Learned advocate, Shri
Sadhwani therefore submitted that though the land
was taken by the deceased, Vashrambhai, it was a
joint family property, which included his brothers
Bhavanbhai and Shamjibhai, who are the petitioners
herein. Learned advocate, Shri Sadhwani therefore
submitted that after such long period without any

¶34

basis, the impugned order came to be passed, by
which, the name of the petitioners are removed and
the names of the respondent nos.3 and 4 are added
which has led to the present petition.

¶35

4. Learned AGP Shri Vyas has referred to the papers and background with the details and submitted that thought it is claimed that in the record, the name

¶36

Page 3 of 8

¶37

C/SCA/3093/2012 JUDGMENT

¶38

of the deceased, Vashrambhai was mentioned, it was
a joint property, however, there is no evidence as
discussed and, therefore, only heirs of the
deceased, Vashramnhai would be entitled, for
which, entry has been made in the impugned order.
Learned AGP Shri Vyas therefore submitted that as
there are concurrent findings, the order may be
sustained and same may not be disturbed.

¶39

5.Learned advocate, Shri Sunil Patel also referred
to the background and submitted that in fact,
appeal was filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4
challenging the order passed by the Deputy
Collector dated 26.04.1985 and on the ground of
limitation, it was not entertained. He has also
referred to the subsequent orders passed by the

¶40

Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department dated
01.10.1993 (Annexure-C) and submitted that the
order of the Collector, Bhavnagar dated 22.04.1958
was set aside and it was directed that the
Collector may decide afresh after providing an
opportunity to all concerned and on examination of
the record, thereafter, the Collector again passed

¶41

an order partly allowing the appeal by an order
dated 12.08.1994, in which, he remanded the matter

¶42

Page 4 of 8

¶43

C/SCA/3093/2012 JUDGMENT

¶44

to the City Survey Superintendent, Bhavnagar for
deciding the same on the basis of the record and
there is discussion with regard to the earlier
entry since 1964 and the order of the City Survey
dated 22.04.1968. He submitted that thereafter
again, it was proceeded further and ultimately,
the Secretary (Appeals) passed an order dated
30.08.2011 in a revisional power under Section
108(6)(a) of the Land Revenue Code observing that
the name of the respondent nos.3 and 4 recorded by
the City Survey Superintendent does not call for
any interference, however there again, the matter
was proceeded and ultimately by an order dated
15.01.1998, the City Survey Superintendent passed
an order directing that the name of respondent
nos.3 and 4 in respect of survey nos.2567 and 2568
may be made, which was a subject matter in the
appeal before the Collector and, thereafter
finally in the proceeding before the Secretary
(Appeals) by way of revisional power under Section
108 of the Land Revenue Code.

¶45

6. Therefore as could be seen from the record, there

¶46

is no dispute that the land in question belonged
to Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, which was

¶47

Page 5 of 8

¶48

C/SCA/3093/2012 JUDGMENT

¶49

leased out to the deceased, Vashrambhai and the
respondent nos.3 and 4 are the sons of the
deceased, Vashrambhai and the petitioners are the
real brothers. The entry has been made since 1964,
which has been continued till these litigations
started. In fact, the entry as it stands
originally included the names of all, however, it
is only because the petitioners herein took a
stand in the proceeding before the Collector that
both property bearing survey nos.2567 and 2568
belonged to the deceased-father, Vashrambhai and
the heirs of the deceased, Vashrambhai. The
respondent nos.3 and 4 (sons) are entitled only
and the petitioners herein, who are brothers, have
no right, title and interest, which has led to the
aforesaid chequered history of litigation.
However, as could be seen from the record, which
has been examined by the authorities time and
again, the aforesaid facts are not in dispute with
regard to the lease in the name of the deceased,
Vashrambhai. The respondent nos.3 and 4 are the
sons, who would be entitled. Similarly, the
petitioners, who are the real heirs of the
deceased (uncle of the respondent nos.3 and 4),

¶50

Page 6 of 8

¶51

C/SCA/3093/2012 JUDGMENT

¶52

their names have also been shown in the entry
jointly. There is a reference to the agricultural
land also cultivated and occupied jointly by all
and, therefore, it leaves no doubt with regard to
the nature of the leasehold right enjoyed by them
jointly and, therefore, it appears that the
impugned order, which came to be passed by the
Secretary (Appeals) confirming the order dated
30.08.2011, cannot be sustained in light of the
background as stated hereinabove that the property

¶53

was joint property acquired on lease by the
deceased, Vashrambhai from out of the corpus of
the joint family and it was understood in that
manner which is evident from the affidavit of the
respondent no.3 also produced at Annexure-A.
Therefore, the present petition deserves to be
allowed.

¶54

7.In the circumstances, the present petition stands
allowed in terms of Para No.7(B). The impugned
order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department in Revision Application No.11/2002 and
also the order passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar

¶55

in RO Appeal No.34/1999 and also the order of the
City Survey Superintendent dated 05.01.1998 are

¶56

Page 7 of 8

¶57

C/SCA/3093/2012 JUDGMENT

¶58

hereby quashed and set aside. The original entry
as it was dated 06.03.1968 showing the leasehold
land in the name of the petitioners as well as the
respondent nos.3 and 4 are hereby confirmed and
the respondent authorities shall restore the entry
in light of the aforesaid discussion. Rule is made
absolute.

¶59

Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

¶60

Gautam

¶61

Page 8 of 8

Veersingh Bhavanbhai Rathod v. Collector Bhavnagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veersingh Bhavanbhai Rathod v. Collector Bhavnagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantaben Bholabhai Patel Vs Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal

Bholabhai Chaturdas Patel Vs Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal

Heirs of Deceased Narmadaben Laxmangar Vs Collector Kachchh at Bhuj

Harilal Lakhmanji Soni Vs State of Gujarat

Jaishri T Pandya Vs State of Gujarat

Jerambhai Virbhai Ahir Since Deceased Thru Heirs Vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal