Ahmedabad: In important order, the Gujarat High Court has argued that mere magic written statements by a sister to let go of their rights for ancestral property cannot be treated as a release and rights act to share in ancestral property not extinguished.
A woman can claim the mutation part of sharing and challenges on ancestral property about the exception of its name, if the name is issued without following the procedure below the 135D section of the Gujarat land income code.
Affidavit mere approval let go of his rights that support you is not enough to end his ownership rights.
The case before the High Court came from Shihor.
Hajj Deraiya lagged behind the ancestral land.
His daughter Roshan Sorathiya and Hasina Kalvatar signed a written statement in 2010 handed over their shares.
This happens when their father is still alive.
Father died in October 2010.
After that, the name of the only three sons in the income record based on the written statement by the sisters.
Mutation entries were completed in 2016.
After finalizing land transfers to three brothers in 2016, their sister, Roshan Sorathiya, approached the deputy collector who questioned the exception of his name based on a written statement, which was not a registered document.
After finalizing land transfers to the three brothers in 2016, their sister, Roshan Sorathiya, approached the deputy collector who questioned the exception of his name based on a written statement, which was not a registered document.
The application to mutate his name was rejected in 2017.
Revised application before the district collector was rejected in 2018.
Special Secretary of the Revenue Department also rejected Roshan Soreathiya’s appeal in June 2020, especially with the land he was questioned.
Property distribution is more than six years after it is done on the basis of its release.
Soreathiya approached HC and challenged the decision of the income department not to consider his name to share based on his written statement.
His lawyer handed over that the agreement could not be treated as an act of release.
It was said that the approval of the woman was not sought by following the procedure including the issuance of notifications under the 135D code section, and mutation entries were wrongly confirmed in 2016.
The brothers opposed the petition who said she challenged the entries that were late stages.