Case Note & Summary
The present Letters Patent Appeal arises from an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 8927 of 2025. The appellant, Ramjibhai Mohanbhai Patoliya, and the respondent No.4 are cousins. The appellant claimed that in or about 1958, their predecessors effected a family arrangement/partition in writing, whereby certain lands were allotted to the appellant's branch. However, the respondent No.4 filed a writ petition before the Single Judge seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to mutate his name in the revenue records based on an alleged family arrangement. The Single Judge, without adjudicating the genuineness of the family arrangement and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, directed the revenue authorities to mutate the name of the respondent No.4. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 47 days. The respondent No.4 had no objection to the condonation of delay, and the delay was condoned. The Division Bench heard the matter at the admission stage with consent of counsel. The Court observed that the Single Judge had erred in directing mutation without adjudicating the disputed family arrangement and without hearing the appellant. The Court held that revenue authorities cannot act solely on the basis of a disputed family arrangement without proper adjudication by a civil court. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and remanded the matter back to the Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties. The Court also directed that the parties may approach the civil court for adjudication of the family arrangement if they so desire. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Condonation of Delay - Delay of 47 days in filing appeal - No objection from respondent - Delay explained to satisfaction of court - Delay condoned (Para 1). B) Letters Patent Appeal - Maintainability - Appeal against order of Single Judge in writ petition - Held that the Single Judge's order directing mutation based on unadjudicated family arrangement was erroneous and required interference (Paras 4-6). C) Family Arrangement - Mutation Entry - Revenue Authorities - Duty to verify genuineness - Held that revenue authorities cannot act solely on the basis of a disputed family arrangement without proper adjudication by a civil court (Para 5). D) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Interference with revenue entries - Held that writ court should not direct mutation without giving opportunity of hearing to affected parties and without adjudicating disputed questions of fact (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing the revenue authorities to mutate the name of the respondent No.4 in the revenue records based on a family arrangement without adjudicating the genuineness of the said arrangement and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Final Decision
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and remanded the matter back to the Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties. The parties were also given liberty to approach the civil court for adjudication of the family arrangement.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Remand
- Family arrangement
- Partition
- Mutation entry
- Civil Court jurisdiction
- Revenue authorities
- Writ jurisdiction
