AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The petitioners, by way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the action/inaction of the respondents of not treating and describing land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. Mtrs. bearing Survey No. 12/1, situated at Palanpur belonging to the petitioners as of ''old tenure'', describing the tenure of land bearing survey No. 12/1/1 as ''new tenure'' instead of old tenure and of land bearing survey No. 12/1/2, 12/1/3 and 12/1/4 as ''Sarkari Padatar'' instead of old tenure inspite of the fact that the petitioners have been declared to be absolute owners of the said lands by virtue of judgment and decree dated 30/07/1997 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Palanpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1986. The petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs; (A) That the Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents (i) to treat and describe land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. mtr. bearing survey No. 12/1 situated at Palanpur belonging to the petitioners as of "old tenure" in the revenue record, (ii) to delete the words "new tenure" from the revenue record pertaining to land bearing survey No. 12/1/1, situated at Palanpur, District Banaskantha and to replace it with the words "old tenure" and (iii) to delete the words "Sarkari Padatar" from the revenue record pertaining to land bearing survey No. 12/1/2, 12/1/3 and 12/1/4 situated at Palanpur, District Banaskantha and to replace it with the words "old tenure";
(B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon''ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to treat land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. mtr. bearing survey No. 12/1 situated at Palanpur as of old tenure;
(C) For Costs;
(D) For such other and further reliefs as the Hon''ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Facts in brief leading to filing this petition, as could be culled out from the memo of petition and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, deserve to be set out as under; 1.1. The petitioners have been declared to be owners of land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. mtr. bearing survey No. 12/1 situated at Palanpur vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Palanpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1986, which was filed by the husband of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2, husband of petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 4, who were plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 respectively. It was contended in the plaint the rights of the plaintiff No. 1 was in respect of 1 Acre 22 Guntha, of plaintiff No. 2 in respect of 1 Acre 31 Guntha, of plaintiff No. 3 in respect of 1 Acre and of plaintiff No. 4 in respect of 22 Guntha, all bearing Survey No. 12. The said judgment and decree dated 30.07.1997 was challenged by the State in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1997, which was dismissed vide order dated 03/08/2006. Thereafter, State has filed Second Appeal No. 189 of 2008 before this Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12/09/2008.
1.2. Thereafter, State has filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16034 of 2010 challenging the judgment and order dated 19/09/2008 before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25/10/2010. On 15/10/2010, mutation entry No. 22129 came to be entered in the revenue record pertaining to land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. mtrs. bearing Survey No. 12/1. However, the land record continued to reflect the words ''Sarkari Padatar'' i.e. Government Waste land. The petitioner addressed a letter to the Collector, Banaskantha requesting that the said land be shown as old tenure. Though the entries were made in the revenue record showing the petitioners as owners of the land, the tenure of the land continued to be described as of ''Sarkari Padatar''. The petitioners addressed one more letter to the Collector, Palanpur in December, 2010 requesting that the words ''Sarkari Padatar'' or ''Kharabo'' be deleted from the revenue record and that the tenure of the land be shown as ''old tenure''. Since, in spite of the representations/letters, the revenue authorities failed to delete the words ''Sarkari Padatar''. Hence, petitioners have filed petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 2836 of 2011 for directing the respondents to delete the words ''Sarkari Padatar'' from the revenue record of Land Village Form No. 7/12. This Court has issued Rule in this matter and made certain observations making it open for the State to take steps for setting aside abatement either before the District Court or before this Court vide order dated 23/03/2011. Thereafter, petitioners have filed appeal before this Court being Letters Patent Appeal No. 802 of 2011 challenging the said order and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15/07/2011 has set aside the order dated 23/03/2011 passed in S.C.A. No. 2836 of 2011 and thereby allow both Special Civil Application No. No. 2836 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 802 of 2011 with direction to the respondents to delete the words ''Sarkari Padatar'' from the village form No. 7/12 and the revenue record available with the respondents and intimate the compliance of the same to the petitioners within two months from the date of production of copy of the judgment.
1.3. Thereafter, Mutation Entry No. 22645 came to be posted in the revenue record recording the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 802 of 2011. Thereafter, Mutation Entry No. 22665 came to be posted in the revenue record recording the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 802 of 2011. In spite of the clear direction, the respondents have failed to delete the words ''Sarkari Padtar''. The respondent State has filed Misc. Civil Application No. 2397 of 2011 for extension of time, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2011. Thereafter, petitioners have filed Misc. Civil Application for contempt No. 2617 of 2011, which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 15.11.2011, with a view to move appropriate forum for appropriate clarification. The respondents gave impression that the words ''Sarkari Padatar'' were deleted from land bearing Survey No. 12/1 and Court found that the aspect about whether the land should be of ''new tenure'' or not cannot be agitated into the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act. In the meanwhile, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8314 of 2012 filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 802 of 2011 came to be dismissed vide order 11.05.2012. Thereafter, petitioners have filed Misc. Civil Application No. 2916 of 2011 before the Division Bench of this Court challenging the action of the respondents of qualifying the revenue record by adding the words ''new tenure, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2012. The Division Bench has held that the application for modification or clarification or direction is not the lawful remedy. The lawful remedy is by way of filing a fresh writ petition on the subsequent cause of action. Respondents have deleted the word ''Sarkari Padatar'' only with respect to survey No. 12/1/1. So far as, land bearing survey No. 12/1/2, 12/1/3 and 12/1/4 are concerned, the same still continues to be shown as of ''Sarkari Padatar''. The action/inaction of the respondents of not treating and describing land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. mtr. bearing survey No. 12/1 as of ''old tenure'', of describing the tenure of land bearing survey No. 12/1/1 as ''new tenure'' instead of old tenure and of land bearing survey No. 12/1/2. 12/1/3 and 12/1/4 as ''Sarkari Padatar'' instead of ''old tenure'' is challenged in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have been declared to be absolute owners of land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. mtr. bearing survey No. 12/1 situated at Palanpur vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.1997 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1986 and confirmed till the Supreme Court. The right and status of the petitioners over the land is absolute, complete and without any restriction or limitation and in that circumstances the land cannot be described as land of ''new tenure or ''Sarkari Padatar''. She has submitted that the land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. mtr. bearing survey No. 12/1 situated at Palanpur is required to be treated and described as of old tenure and respondents are required to be directed to mutate revenue record accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the land can be described as ''new tenure'' land if it is granted to the holders pursuant to an order or statutory provision which puts restriction or limitation on the nature of holding or rights of the holder regarding transfer or disposition of the said land and their rights over the land are free, absolute and complete without any restrictions and limitations. The land can not be described as ''new tenure'' land in absence of any corresponding entry in the revenue record which qualifies it to be of ''new tenure''. In absence of any order or mutation entry which records orders, grants or statutory provisions treating the land as of ''new tenure'', treating the tenure as of new tenure as a bad, illegal and void ab initio.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the expression ''new tenure'' has not been defined either under the Bombay Land Revenue Code or under the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and this kind of tenure was created in 1901 by inserting a new proviso to Section 68 of Bombay Land Revenue Code. Under that section conditions can be attached to the grant and these conditions may be inalienability, impartibility or both and she relied on Government Circular Memorandum dated 21.09.1955, the status of the petitioners is that of owners of the land. The land not granted to them u/s 68 of Bombay Land Revenue Code. The insertion of the words ''new tenure'' in the revenue record is thus illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter contended that the revenue authorities do not have any jurisdiction to describe the tenure of any land as new tenure except when the land is granted on conditions prescribed. In the instant case the action of revenue authorities of describing the tenure of the land as new tenure is without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the insertion of words ''new tenure'' in the substitution of the words ''Sarkari Padatar'' is done hurriedly without application of mind. She further submits that Misc. Civil Application No. 2397 of 2011 for extension of time was dismissed by this Court on 14.11.2011. The Misc. Civil Application No. 2617 of 2011 was listed for hearing on the next day. In the circumstances, over night, hurried steps were taken at 1.11 a.m. and revenue record was mutated deleting the words ''Sarkari Padatar'' and replacing it with the words ''new tenure''. She further submitted that qualifying the land as of new tenure results in serious repercussions and limits rights of the petitioners in many ways.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contended that the specific case of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 2836 of 2011 was that the entire land bearing survey No. 12/1 was required to be shown as of ''old tenure'' instead of ''Sarkari Padatar''. This Court vide order dated 15.07.2011 has allowed the said petition. In view of these facts, the insistence of the revenue authorities of describing the tenure of the land as of Sarkari Padtar or new tenure is ex facie high handed, arbitrary and nothing less than shameless disregard to successive orders passed by the Civil Courts, this Court and the Supreme Court. The petitioners believe that the action/inaction of the revenue authorities is for extraneous considerations and malafide.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the orders passed by the respective courts are in respect of all the four petitioners and the land. Special Civil Application No. 2836 of 2011 was also filed by all the four petitioners. In spite of the orders passed in favour of the petitioners, the revenue authorities for the reasons best known to them have failed to delete the words ''Sarkari Padatar'' from land bearing survey No. 12/1/2, 12/1/3 and 12/1/4. The said action is high handed, unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners are joint holders of land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq mtr bearing survey No. 12/1 situated at Palanpur. There has not been any divisions of the land. Apart from this, mutation entry No. 22135 is cancelled vide order dated 21.10.2010. In the circumstances, the action of the respondents of treating the land as sub divided into four parts is contrary to the record, arbitrary and illegal. In any case, even if the land is treated as sub divided into four parts, each part needs to be treated alike. The judgment and decree of the Civil Court is in respect of land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq mtr bearing survey No. 12/1 situated at Palanpur, and would apply to every part thereof with equal force.
In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following authorities namely;
(i) In case of P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others Vs. Revamma and Others,
(ii) In case of Prem Singh and Others Vs. Birbal and Others,
(iii) In case of Bhikaji Maganji Thakore v. State of Gujarat, passed by this Court in S.C.A. No. 7878 of 1996.
(iv) In case of State of Gujarat v. Bhikaji Maganji Thakore, passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 626 of 1997.
(v) In case of State of Gujarat v. Bhikaji Maganji Thakore, passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2323-2324 of 2003.
Learned Government Pleader for the State has submitted that none of the fundamental or any legal right of the petitioner herein are violated calling for interference of this Court under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. So far as, relief sought for issuance of writ of mandamus for removing of word ''Sarkari Padatar'' from revenue record of land bearing survey No. 12/1/2, 12/1/3 and 12/1/4 situated at Palanpur is concerned, the respondent authorities pursuant to the oral order dated 15.07.2011 of this Court has removed the word ''Sarkari Patdar'' vide mutation entry No. 22645 in respect of land bearing survey No. 12/1 paiki admeasuring acres 1-22 gunthas. So far as grievance of the petitioners with regard to addition of word ''New tenure'' in respect of lands in question is concerned, the land in question were originally Government Waste lands and the petitioners herein have become occupant and owners by virtue of adverse possession. In fact the petitioners were unauthorized occupants and by encroachment they have entered into Government waste land and the petitioners have not become absolute owners. There is no restrictions on rights of the petitioners to cultivate for personal use and their names have also been incorporated in 7/12 extracts and the word ''Sarkari Padatar'' has been deleted.
Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the lands in question are located at prime location in city of Palanpur and have become NA potential land. The land is likely to be transfer by the petitioners rather then being use for cultivations for personal purpose. Under the circumstances, if the land is treated as ''Old tenure'' land, the petitioners may transfer and create third party rights which may result into loss of premium to the State Government. The powers are vested with the revenue authority to decide the tenure of the land and looking to the facts of the present case, a decision was taken to treat these lands as new tenure land, inasmuch as that originally the lands in question were Government waste lands and by virtue of encroachment, the petitioners have been declared occupant and owner by adverse possession and therefore no restrictions are there in so far as personal use for cultivation is concerned, however, in case when the petitioners are not inclined to personal use of cultivation, the lands are to be treated as New tenure lands.
Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the if the lands are treated as old tenure lands then there will be loss of premium of Rs. 2,60,40,960/-. Had these lands been owned as owner right from inception, then it could have been treated as Old tenure land but since in present case these lands have been declared of ownership of petitioners on basis of encroachment, the lands being Government waste lands right from it''s inception, is treated as ''New tenure land''. Such cases will establish a wrong precedent and would lead to enhancement of encroachment whereby Government waste lands would be encroach upon and thereafter, based on adverse possession the same shall be claim as of ownership based on possessory title, if are to be treated as old tenure land. He submits that restrictions in the nature of ''new tenure'' are necessary to be incorporated otherwise it would be dehors of doctrine of public trust, inasmuch as, that the Government waste lands which are likely to be used for public at large goes into the hands of persons who intentionally encroach over the Government waste lands leading to increase activities of land grabbing.
Learned counsel for the State has thereafter contended that petitioners hereinabove become occupant and owner by virtue of adverse possession under Sections 60, 62 and 68 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879. It is clear that written permission of Mamlatdar required previous to taking up unoccupied land and unoccupied land may be granted on conditions. In Section 68, it is also provided that occupants right are conditional and Government is also empowered to put condition. Government of Gujarat vide letter dated 20.04.2013 clarify that land in question should be treated as a New Tenure Land.
Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the respondents authorities has rightly passed the impugned orders more particularly, when the petitioners hereinabove failed to produce any single document evidencing the fact about their possession based on their exclusive ownership from it''s inception since prior to independence. He, therefore, submits that there is no merits in the case of the petitioners and the same is required to be dismissed at its threshold.
The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed to the petition. The Court is of the view that before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it is most important to set out few indisputable aspects emerging there from namely;
(i) The fact remains to be noted that the husband of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2, husband of petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 4 were constrained to file Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1986. The Civil Suit was filed in respect of the land mentioned thereunder, which came to be decreed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 30.07.1997. The said judgment and order indicate that the defendants therein were not to interfere with the possession of the suit premises. The entry No. 5313 was declared to be illegal and quashed, and plaintiffs were required to be owners on account of their adverse possession.
(ii) The appeal of the State being Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1997 came to be dismissed and the following order was passed on 03.08.2006, which is required to be reproduced hereinbelow.
Appeal is hereby dismissed with cost.
The judgment and decree of the trial court in regular civil suit No. 268 of 1986 is hereby confirmed.
Decree to be drawn accordingly.
(iii) The Second Appeal No. 189 of 2008 preferred by the State came to be dismissed as having been abated. The relevant portion of this High Court''s judgment and order dated 12.09.2008 passed in Second Appeal No. 189 of 2008 deserve to be set out as under;
Indisputably, an appeal would abate automatically unless the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs or defendants are brought on record within the period specified in the Code of Civil Procedure. Abatement of the appeal, however, can be set aside if an appropriate application is filed therefor. The question, however, as to whether a suit or an appeal has abated or not would depend upon the facts of each case. Had such a question been raised, the respondents could have shown that their cross-objection did not abate as the estate of the deceased cross-objector was substantially represented.
As the application for bringing the heirs of the deceased respondent on record has been rejected, no other result would ensue, except the abatement of the appeal.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down in the judgments quoted hereinabove, as applicable to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the Appeal has abated.
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed, as having abated. The parties shall bear their own costs.
(iv) The State appears to have challenged the judgment and order dated 12.09.2008 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 189 of 2008 in the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16034 of 2010, which came to be dismissed on merits, as could be seen from the order of the Supreme Court, which is required to be set out hereinbelow;
Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
the SLP is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
(v) Thus, the order of Supreme Court has effect of confirming the orders passed on earlier occasions.
(vi) The revenue authorities made Entry No. 22129 on 15.10.2010 in respect of land admeasuring 1.97.28 He. Are. Sq. Mtrs. bearing Survey No. 12/1. On 18.10.2010, the petitioner had to right a letter to the concerned Collector indicating that the revenue record should not reflect that land as ''Sarkari Padtar''. On 22.10.2010, mutation entry came to be posted in the revenue record in respect of land of Survey No. 12/1, which was based upon the judgment of the Civil Court, however, on 22.12.2010, the said entry was cancelled. The land was said to be petitioners'' land yet it was shown in the record, as ''Sarkari Padatar'' or ''Kharabo'', therefore, petitioners were constrained to address a letter. The petitioners, thereafter, were constrained to file petition being S.C.A. No. 2836 of 2011 seeking direction for deleting the word ''Sarkari Padatar'' from the record of Village Form No. 7/12. On 23.03.2011, this Court while issuing Rule observed that it would be open to the State to take steps for setting aside abatement either before the District Court or before this Court. The petitioners preferred L.P.A. No. 802 of 2011, challenging the order dated 23.03.2011 passed by this Court in S.C.A. No. 2836 of 2011.
(vii) On 15.07.2011, this Court set aside the order dated 23.03.2011 passed in S.C.A. No. 2836 of 2011 and allowed S.C.A. No. 2836 of 2011 as well as L.P.A. No. 802 of 2011. The Court directed the respondents to delete the word ''Sarkari Padatar'' from Village Form No. 7/12 and revenue record of other nature. Thereafter Mutation Entry No. 22645 came to be posted on 27.07.2011 referring to the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2011 in L.P.A. No. 802 of 2011. There was a clear direction to remove ''Sarkari Padatar''. The respondents failed and, therefore, petitioners were constrained to file M.C.A. for Contempt No. 2617 of 2011 in L.P.A. No. 802 of 2011 and State filed M.C.A. No. 2397 of 2011 for extension of time for complying with the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2011.
(viii) On 14.11.2011, this Court dismissed the said application for extension of time. The Misc. Civil Application for Contempt No. 2617 of 2011 in L.P.A. No. 802 of 2011 was listed for hearing on the next day. Therefore, the Mutation Entry No. 22645 was certified, which appears to be for the sake of avoiding any orders in the contempt proceeding. On 15.11.2011, the application for seeking contempt proceedings were disposed of, as the respondents gave an impression that the word ''Sarkari Padatar'' were deleted from the land bearing Survey No. 12/1. However, it was observed that the word ''new tenure'' could not be agitated under the proceedings.
(ix) On 11.05.2012, the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8314 of 2012, preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order dated 15.07.2011 passed in L.P.A. No. 802 of 2011 came to be dismissed.
(x) On 27.06.2012, the respondents'' action of qualifying the revenue record by adding word ''new tenure'' was challenged by M.C.A. No. 2916 of 2011, which came to be disposed of by this Court holding that the lawful remedy was to file substantive petition. Hence, this petition was preferred.
Against the aforesaid factual background, question arises as to whether revenue authorities of the State is justified in treating the land to be ''new tenure'' land so as to treat it to be a restricted land. The learned Government Pleader strenuously urged the Court to appreciate the fact that the petitioners did not have any legitimate right to claim ownership on the land. The unfortunate part of the matter is that the State could not take steps in time for setting aside abatement, but Civil Court''s order should be viewed from the angle that the petitioners are declared owners to enjoy the land. But that in itself is not sufficient to confer the petitioners with right to agitate that the nature of their holding be declared to be absolute so as to give them right to deal in the land without any restrictions. The Civil Court''s judgment and order is required to be viewed only from this angle. The aforesaid submission is based upon the premise that the court''s declaration qua petitioners being owner by way of adverse possession cannot confer the petitioners with substantive right.
The Court is of the considered view that the Civil Court''s declaration in the Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 268 of 1986 is required to be viewed in its proper term, when this decision is indicative of the fact that the petitioners were required to be declared to be owners, then the word ''owner'' shall take its meaning from the common parlance and the dictionary meaning which would rule out any requirement of inviting or attracting any tenure as suggested by the counsel for the State.
The word ''tenure'', as prevalent in the revenue parlance is required to be understood properly to appreciate the submission. The land, so far as its tenure is concerned, is governed by the laws pertaining to lands and its enjoyment. The Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 contains some inherent restrictions in enjoyment of the land, wherein there are two types of occupants prescribed and the land is essentially treated as agricultural land and all agricultural lands are thus cover under the said law and as the instant land has not been treated as a grant or assignment from the State which is required to be governed by conditions, then it cannot be treated as ''new tenure''. This does not mean to say that the otherwise restrictions are available under the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, would not be applicable, but it will only be applicable, as if, the petitioners were original owner of the land, as per its nature. The Court, at this stage need not elaborately go into this aspect, as there are no pleadings on this aspect.
The ownership of the land and petitioners'' right to enjoy the land as a owner was subject matter of decision before the competent Civil Court, wherein the State has lost up to Supreme Court. Therefore, the judgment and order of the Civil Court with all its purport, meaning and direction has to be complied with.
The judgment of the Civil Court is to be treated as binding declaration on the parties and, therefore, State has to treat the land to be ''old tenure'' land which would obviate the requirement of treating it to be even ''Sarkari Padatar''. The said judgment cannot be whittled down or modified by the act of the State. The State can, therefore, not treat the land to be either ''new tenure'' so as to attach restrictions or ''Sarkari Padatar'' so as to claim any other rights arising there from, but this would not amount to changing the original nature of the land. The declaration of the Civil Court will have to be understood in accordance with law and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be given better right, then the original land owners who are otherwise enjoying the land of their ownership in accordance with law and those provisions of law would be binding on them also.
In short when the State has lost in its litigation up to Supreme Court, the judgment and order of the Civil Court will have to be given its true meaning and it has to be complied with. Therefore, as a result thereof, the petitioners are entitled to treat the land to be belonging to them as per the original nature of the land and the land revenue record, therefore, are not to be indicative of any artificial restrictions in terms of ''new tenure'' or ''Sarkari Padatar''.
The Court is also unable to agree with the submission of learned Government Pleader that the petitioners have alternative remedy as the petitioners have approached the Court straightway without following the remedy of rectification with the revenue authorities. The said submission appears to be attractive, is required to be rejected as the subsequent litigations qua entry were entertained and there is a Division Bench order also passed in the matter. Therefore, now, it would be not appropriate to relegate the petitioners to seek remedy from the State authorities, as the State was party in the said proceeding and the State has lost in the battle of ownership of the land, so far as, the petitioners'' ownership right is concerned on the subject land. Therefore, State''s insistence for treating the land to be new tenure does not seem to be justified in any manner. The Court, therefore, is of the view that this matter does not require any further elaborate consideration and suffice it to say that the Civil Court''s order is required to be carried out in its totality which would require the State to straighten its revenue record and indicate that the petitioners'' land is a land owned by them and, therefore, the occurring of ''new tenure'' and ''Sarkari Padatar'' be removed from the revenue record, so far as, land is concerned. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The authorities are directed to rectify the revenue record and remove the word ''new tenure'' as well as ''Sarkari Padatar'' from the record, which would entitle the petitioners to treat the land, as if, it belong to them in accordance with law, as per the order of the Civil Court. Rule made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to costs.