1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.08.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) in Revision Application No. MVV/ JMN/ JNR/ 111/ 2011, the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the District Collector in PARCH/ APPEAL/ 8/ 10-11 as well as the order passed by the Deputy Collector in JMN/ 3267/ 09 dated 23.03.2010 and also prayed for a direction upon the Mamlatdar to mutate the name of the petitioner(s) in the revenue records.

FACTS

3. It is the case of the petitioners that one Balubha Bapubha acquired the land bearing Revenue Survey No.207 admeasuring 40-20 Acre-Guntha (new Revenue Survey No.763 admeasuring 15-88-57 Hec.- Are-sq.mrts.) of Village Bamnasa, Taluka Kalyanpur, District Jamnagar by paying Rs.327/- to the Government and accordingly, he was alloted sanad from the year 1956. It is asserted by the petitioners that since 1956, Balubha Bapubha was doing the agricultural activities in the said land. After demise of Balubha Bapubha, his legal heirs continued to undertake the agricultural activities in the land in question. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Balubha Bapubha decided to divide equal share between them and, therefore, they approached the revenue authorities for mutation of their heir-ship, which was rejected on the ground that name of Balubha Bapubha was not in the revenue records. Thereafter, Bonjiba Balubha Rathod - wife of Balubha Bapubha i.e. the petitioner herein preferred an application before the Deputy Collector to mutate their names in the revenue records however, the same was rejected on the ground that name of the deceased Balubha Bapubha was not reflecting in the 7/12 extracts and also on the ground of delay. The order of the Deputy Collector came to be confirmed by the District Collector vide impugned order dated30.08.2011. The said orders were subject matter of challenge before the respondent No.1-SSRD and by the impugned order dated 20.08.2016, the revision application filed by the petitioners has been rejected.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned advocate Mr.Purohit appearing for the petitioners has submitted that initial impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector is contrary to the report filed by the Mamlatdar, Kalyanpur and in fact, the findings recorded therein run contrary to the record, which has been examined by the Mamlatdar, Kalyanpur as well as which have been produced before this Court hence, the impugned orders require to be quashed and set aside. He has placed reliance on the order dated 14.04.1956, pursuant to which husband of the petitioner paid Rs.327/- for “Kabza Kimmat” and accordingly, sanad was issued in the name of the husband of the petitioner-Bonjiba i.e. Balubha Bapubha. He has submitted that thereafter, the land has been in constant possession of the Balubha Bapubha and thereupon, undertaking necessary agricultural activities. He has also placed reliance on the panchnama receipt in support of his submissions and has referred to the same.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Purohit has submitted that after the demise of Balubha Bapubha, the petitioners approached the revenue authorities to mutate their names in the revenue records, pursuant to which Entry No.1552 dated 14.04.2004 came to be mutated though, the same came to be cancelled on the ground that name of Balubha Bapubha was not reflected in the revenue records. It is submitted that the land in question was allotted to the husband of the petitioner in 1956, pursuant to which “Kabza Kimmat” was also paid however, though the concerned Mamlatdar has taken into consideration all these documents, the Deputy Collector in the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 has totally ignored the same. He has further submitted that Talati in his report/communication dated 27.11.2009, which has been addressed to the Mamlatdar has observed and recorded that the land in question was allotted to the husband of the petitioner and till date, the petitioner is cultivating the land in question. It is further observed that Kabza Kimmat was also paid on time and till date, there is no order passed by any revenue authority, whereby the land has been vested in the State Government. It is also recorded that in Sanad, the word “Nirantar” is mentioned though, the effect of the Sanad is not given. It is thus, submitted that despite the positive opinions of the Talati as well as the Mamlatdar, which reflect in the communication dated 27.11.2009 as well as 30.11.2009, the Deputy Collector has ignored such positive opinions and very cursorily, passed the impugned order dated 23.03.2010. It is thus, submitted that the SSRD has also committed the same mistake by confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector hence, the matter may be remanded.

5. Per contra, learned AGP has submitted that the impugned orders do not require any interference since the same are precisely passed. He has submitted that in fact, the petitioners have belatedly approached the revenue authorities for getting their names mutated and nowhere, the documents reflect that the deceased Balubha Bapubha was cultivating the land for all these years. It is submitted that the Deputy Collector has precisely ignored the recommendation of the Talati as well as the Mamlatdar and hence, the impugned orders may not be set aside.

6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.

CONCLUSION

7. A short issue involved in the writ petition is whether the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 23.03.2010, which is confirmed by the SSRD is required to be quashed and set aside or not since the same is bereft of any findings. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector reveals that though, it refers to the reports forwarded by the Mamlatdar containing the findings of the Talati and Mamlatdar, which are in favour of the petitioners, are totally ignored. In fact, prima facie, this Court has also noticed that the findings recorded in the order are contrary to the documents, which are produced on record and which are also examined by the concerned Talati and Mamlatdar hence, the said order is required to be quashed and set aside only on this ground.

8. The SSRD has also committed the same error by confirming the order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector. In fact, the SSRD should have remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector, Khambhaliya in order to pass a reasoned order, after undertaking necessary exercise and examining the reports of the Talati as well as Mamlatdar, which are in favour of the petitioners.

9. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 20.08.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) in Revision Application No. MVV/ JMN/ JNR/ 111/ 2011, the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the District Collector in PARCH/ APPEAL/ 8/ 10-11 as well as the order passed by the Deputy Collector in JMN/ 3267/ 09 dated 23.03.2010 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector, Khambhaliya, who shall pass a reasoned order by taking into consideration the reports of the Talati as well as Mamlatdar. Necessary order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of order of this Court.

10. The present writ petition is allowed.

12. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.