Gujarat High Court
Bhikhabhai Raghunath Rathodia vs Harmanbhai Lallubhai Patel Through ... on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 06/04/2026
Pronounced On : 20/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9695 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHIKHABHAI RAGHUNATH RATHODIA & ORS.
Versus
HARMANBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL THROUGH LEGAL HIERS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR. JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein have prayed for following reliefs:
''(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.5.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VDD/202/12;23.5.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the order dated Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined 23.5.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VDD/202/12;
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief and/or order in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioners.''
2) The case of the petitioner can be summarized in the nutshell as under:
2.1) The land bearing Block Nos. 508/A and 508/B situated at Village Amaliyara, Taluka and District Vadodara, originally belonged to Shri Raghunathbhai Lalabhai. After his demise, the names of his wife and legal heirs came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 1208 dated 22.04.1975.
Thereafter, Bai Suri, the wife of Raghunathbhai, executed a Will on 16.05.1988, prior to her demise on 24.11.1989, whereby Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were declared as beneficiaries in respect of the said land. Pursuant to the execution of the registered Will, Entry No. 1641 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 22.10.1993, which was subsequently certified on 28.11.1993. Subsequently, in the year 2012, the Collector, Vadodara, initiated suo motu proceedings under the provisions of Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. The said proceedings were initiated, inter alia, on the grounds that: (i) the land in question was of new and impartible tenure; and (ii) the revenue record reflected the names of two other persons along with Bai Suri, indicating that the property was ancestral in nature, Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined and therefore, she had no right to execute a Will in favour of third parties. Notices came to be issued, and ultimately, the concerned Collector concluded that Entry No. 1641 dated 22.10.1993 was not in consonance with the statutory provisions of law and, therefore, required to be cancelled. Accordingly, the said entry was quashed and set aside.
2.2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the Collector, a Revision Application came to be preferred before the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals). The said appeal was allowed by the competent authority. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
3) Heard learned advocate Ms. Nishi Patel appearing on behalf of H. L. Patel Advocates for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta for Respondent No. 1.
4) Learned advocate Ms. Nishi Patel, appearing on behalf of H. L. Patel Advocates for the applicant, has submitted that the order passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) is unjust, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition. She has emphatically submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the property in question originally belonged to the ancestors of the petitioners. After the demise of Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined the father of the petitioners, the property came to be mutated in the names of all legal heirs, including the petitioners. An entry to that effect was mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 1619, wherein the names of the two sons were reflected along with the name of the mother. She has further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that ancestral property cannot be bequeathed by way of executing Will. The record clearly reveals that the property in question is ancestral in nature. It is further submitted that when the names of three persons are reflected in the revenue record, the entire parcel of land could not have been bequeathed by executing a Will. Moreover, only the share of the executor, i.e., one-third share, could have been bequeathed in favour of the beneficiary. She has further submitted that such aspects ought to have been verified by the concerned revenue authority at the time of mutating the entry in the revenue record. However, it is an admitted position that these relevant aspects were not verified by the authority at the time of mutation of the entry. It is further submitted that, on the basis of the execution of the registered Will, the respondents herein attempted to obtain probate from the competent civil court by initiating civil proceedings. It was only at that stage that the petitioners came to know about the execution of the said Will. Thereafter, in the year 2012, the Collector, Vadodara, exercised suo motu revisional powers by way of issuing notice to the petitioners, as several defects were found in the aforesaid transactions. The proceedings were essentially initiated on the ground that the land in question was of new and impartible tenure and, Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined therefore, without obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority, the title of the property could not have been legally transferred.
4.1) Secondly, it is submitted that the executor of the Will had become the owner of the said property by way of inheritance, and the property in question was ancestral in nature. As per the settled proposition of law, only self-acquired property can be bequeathed by executing a registered Will. Therefore, on the face of the record, the transaction in question appears to be in contravention of the statutory provisions of law, and consequently, the entry mutated in the revenue record deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that, after considering and appreciating all the documents and material available on record, the Collector, Vadodara, arrived at the conclusion that the said entry mutated in the revenue record was not in consonance with the statutory provisions of law and, therefore, required to be cancelled. Accordingly, the said entry came to be quashed and set aside.
4.2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, the respondents preferred a revision application before the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals). After affording full opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the concerned authority allowed the said revision application. The same was essentially allowed on two principal grounds. Firstly, the entry in question was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1993 and Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined was subsequently certified on 28.11.1993. Therefore, there was a gross and inordinate delay of about 19 years in exercising the suo motu revisional powers by the revenue authority. It is further observed that such suo motu revisional powers are required to be exercised within a reasonable period of time. It is a settled proposition of law that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts have, in numerous case laws, held that such powers ought to be exercised within a reasonable time, which ordinarily should not exceed three years.
4.3) The second and foremost issue raised before the concerned authority was that the Collector had initiated suo motu RTS proceedings, but while deciding the matter, dealt with issues pertaining to breach of statutory provisions. Therefore, the action on the part of the Collector clearly indicates cross- utilization of powers by the revenue authority while adjudicating the matter. Hence, the order passed by the revenue authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.4) Learned advocate Ms. Nishi Patel submitted that, as soon as petitioners came to know about the execution of the Will, they immediately challenged the said registered Will by filing a suit before the competent civil Court. However, the said suit was subsequently withdrawn and a copy of the order to that effect is placed on record. She further submitted that the respondents had also instituted a suit before the competent civil Court against the present applicants seeking declaration as well as Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined permanent injunction in respect of the said property. The said suit came to be dismissed by the competent civil Court and a copy of the order is placed on record. This itself crystallizes the factual position that Respondent No. 2 has no right, title, or interest in the property in question. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition and that the order passed by the District Collector is just, legal and proper, and therefore, requires to be restored.
5) Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta appears on behalf of Respondent No. 1 submits that the order passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) is just, fair, and reasonable, and based on sound principles of law, and therefore, does not require any interference by this Court in the present proceedings. He further submits that it is an admitted position of fact that the property originally belonged to Shri Raghunathbhai Lalabhai, who was the father of the petitioners. After his sad demise, the said property came to be transferred in the name of his wife, Bai Suri, and his two sons, namely Bhikhabhai Raghunath Rathodia and Jugabhai Raghunath Rathodia, vide Entry No. 1208 dated 22.04.1975. Thereafter, Bai Suri, the mother of the present petitioners, executed a Will on 16.05.1988 in favour of Respondent No. 1, thereby bequeathing the said property to him. After the demise of Bai Suri, and on the strength of the registered Will, an entry came to be mutated in the revenue Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined record. He submits that at that relevant point of time, the petitioners had appeared before the Talati-cum-Mantri of Amaliyara Gram Panchayat, their statements were recorded, wherein they had given "consent" to mutate in the entry in the name of the respondents and after considering the same, the entry was duly certified by the concerned authority. Thus, all necessary legal formalities were duly complied with by the revenue authority before mutating the entry in the revenue record. He further submits that these facts were well within the knowledge of the petitioners from the very beginning and therefore, they had not challenged the entry mutated in the revenue record or raised any objection against the said entry. However, after a lapse of about 19 years, the Collector, Vadodara, exercised suo motu revisional powers under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 by issuing notice to the petitioners.
5.1) Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that, time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have reiterated in a series of judgments that though no specific time limit is prescribed under the statute for initiation of suo motu revisional proceedings, such powers are required to be exercised in a pragmatic manner and within a reasonable period of time. It is further submitted that such reasonable period ordinarily cannot be stretched beyond three years. In this regard, learned advocate has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors., (1969) 2 SCC 187.
5.2) He further submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the execution of the Will and the bequeathing of the property in favour of Respondent No. 1, they ought to have pursued appropriate proceedings before the competent civil Court. He submits that the documents on record clearly indicate that the civil suit instituted at the instance of the petitioners was withdrawn by them. The issues raised by the Collector while deciding the suo motu revision proceedings essentially fall within the domain (jurisdiction) of the civil Court. It is further submitted that, time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that revenue authorities have got right to decide the disputes pertaining to entries in the revenue record, (revenue disputes), whereas civil rights of the parties are required to be adjudicated by the competent civil court exercising civil jurisdiction. He submits that since the suit instituted by the petitioners was unconditionally withdrawn, the civil rights of the parties have not been adjudicated or crystallized. In the absence of any judicial determination of such rights, the revenue authority lacks jurisdiction to decide the same. Therefore, it is submitted that the view adopted by the Collector while cancelling the entry is contrary to the settled provisions of law and therefore, Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) has rightly quashed and set aside the said decision.
5.3) Admittedly, herein in the present case, the Collector, Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Vadodara, exercised suo motu revisional powers after a lapse of about 19 years. Therefore, solely on the basis of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such proceedings could not have been initiated after such an inordinate delay. He further submits that though the Collector initiated RTS proceedings by issuing a suo motu notice under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, while cancelling the entry in the revenue record, the Collector assigned reasons pertaining to breach of statutory provisions. It is submitted that the exercise of such power by the Collector is illegal, as it is a settled proposition of law that powers conferred under one enactment cannot be exercised while adjudicating issues arising under another enactment. More particularly, when revenue authorities are vested with powers under various enactments, such powers must be exercised strictly within their respective statutory framework and within a reasonable period of time. He further submits that this view has been adopted by this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Co-op. Housing Society v. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991 (1) GLR 113 is squarely applicable to the facts and issues involved in the present petition. Considering the same, there is merit in the application and petition is required to be dismissed by confirming the order of Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals).
6) Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the records and proceedings of Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined the case it appears from the record that the land bearing Block Nos. 508/A and 508/B, situated at Village Amaliyara, Taluka and District Vadodara, originally belonged to Shri Raghunathbhai Lalabhai. After his sad demise, the names of his legal heirs came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 1208 dated 22.04.1975. Subsequently, the wife of late Shri Raghunathbhai Lalabhai, namely Bai Suri, expired on 24.11.1989 and prior to her demise, she had executed a Will dated 16.05.1988 in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, thereby bequeathing the said property in their favour. Pursuant thereto, Entry No. 1641 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 26.10.1993. At the time of mutation of the said entry, statements of the concerned stakeholders were recorded by the revenue authority and they had given their consent, specifically stating that they had no objection if the names of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are mutated in the said Will. The said entry was thereafter certified on 28.11.1993. It is further appears from the record that the legal heirs, including the sons of late Shri Raghunathbhai Lalabhai, had never challenged the said entry and had accepted the same without any objection. However, in the year 2012, the aforesaid facts came to the notice of the District Collector, Vadodara. It was observed that, at the time of mutating the entry, the concerned authority had not considered the relevant aspects of the matter. Subsequently, suo motu revision proceedings came to be initiated under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. A notice was issued primarily on the following grounds that the land in question was of new and impartible tenure and that Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined the revenue record reflected the names of two other persons along with Bai Suri, indicating that the property was ancestral in nature, and therefore, she had no valuable right to execute a Will in favour of third parties. It was further alleged that the entry mutated in the revenue record was not in consonance with the statutory provisions of law and, therefore, required to be cancelled.
6.1) After affording full opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, the Deputy Collector held that, at the time of mutation of the entry, the authority had failed to adhere to the statutory provisions of law. It was specifically observed that: (i) No probate of the Will was demanded or produced at the relevant time, (ii) Bai Suri, being the widow of late Shri Raghunathbhai Lalabhai, had got her share in the property as a legal heir along with her two sons pursuant to the heirship entry. On the basis of these facts, the Collector concluded that the property was ancestral in nature. It is a settled proposition of law that ancestral property cannot ordinarily be bequeathed by way of a Will without establishing absolute ownership. At the time of executing a Will, the author of the documents is required to clearly declare that the property is self-acquired and belongs exclusively to him or her. The source of acquisition must also be reflected in the document. In the present case, such essential particulars are conspicuously absent from the record. Despite this, the entry was mutated on the basis of the registered Will without proper verification. In view of the aforesaid facts and Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined circumstances, the entry mutated in the revenue record is found to be contrary to the statutory provisions of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6.2) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision rendered by the District Collector, Vadodara, a revision application came to be preferred before the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals). The said revision application has been allowed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), and therefore, the present petition has been filed.
6.3) It is the specific case of the petitioners that, after appreciating and considering all the documents and material available on record, the District Collector had passed a detailed and well-reasoned order assigning effective reasons. It is contended that the said order did not require any interference at the hands of the revisional authority. It is also an admitted position of fact that, at the relevant point of time, neither the original Will nor a copy of the probate was produced before the revenue authorities. It further appears that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had subsequently initiated proceedings before the competent Civil Court seeking declaration and other consequential reliefs by instituting a suit. The said suit came to be dismissed by the competent Civil Court. However, the said judgment and order has been challenged before the appellate authority and is presently pending for final adjudication. Therefore, at this stage, this Court refrains from making any Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined observations with regard to the said proceedings.
6.4) It is also an admitted position that, upon initiation of proceedings under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 by the Collector, the petitioners herein had instituted a civil suit before the competent Civil Court seeking cancellation of the registered document executed between the parties. However, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the said suit came to be withdrawn. A copy of the order permitting withdrawal is placed on record. Therefore, the registered Will executed by the mother of the petitioners in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has not been set aside or cancelled by any competent Court and continues to remain in existence. However, it is also a matter of fact that the suit instituted by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of the said Will has already been dismissed by the competent Civil Court.
6.5) It is also an admitted position that, at the time of cancelling the entry mutated in the revenue record, the concerned Collector had pinpointed certain issues on the basis of which the decision came to be rendered. Upon bare perusal of the operative part of the order, it crystallise the position of fact that while deciding the validity of the revenue entry, the District Collector has dwelled upon the issues pertaining to civil dispute by and between the parties and adjudicated civil rights of the parties and consequently cancelled the said entry. It is a settled proposition of law that while the revenue authorities are Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined empowered to decide disputes pertaining to entries in the revenue record, they do not possess jurisdiction to adjudicate civil rights of the parties. For determination of civil rights, the parties are required to approach the competent Civil Court, and only upon adjudication by such Court can the rights of the parties be crystallised.
6.6) In the present case, it is an admitted position that the parties had, in fact, initiated proceedings before the competent Civil Court by way of filing a suit. However, they chose not to pursue the said proceedings and ultimately withdrew the same. It further appears from the record that, while deciding the RTS proceedings and cancelling the entry, the Collector has made certain observations to the effect that there was a clear breach of statutory provisions of law. However, at the time of arriving at such a conclusion, the District Collector had not initiated any independent proceedings for breach of statutory provisions under the relevant enactment. It is a settled principle that an officer of the Revenue Department, though occupying different capacities under different enactments, cannot exercise powers under one enactment while acting under another. So far as RTS proceedings are concerned, it is well settled that entries in the revenue record are primarily of fiscal nature and do not create title. Mutation entries are required to follow either valid documents of title or orders passed by competent authorities under the relevant enactments. The revenue authorities cannot cancel entries merely on the assumption that the underlying Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined transaction is in violation of statutory provisions. It is also an admitted position that the entry in question was mutated in the year 1993, whereas the proceedings under Rule 108(6) came to be initiated by the District Collector in the year 2012, i.e., after a lapse of approximately 19 years. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the revenue authority in initiating such proceedings. Further, it is required to be noted that proceedings under Rule 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules are summary in nature. The revenue authorities are only required to verify the correctness of the entry and cannot decide disputed questions of title. It is also a settled principle of law that if proceedings are initiated after an unreasonable delay, the same should not be entertained. In the present case, the proceedings have been initiated after a long period of 19 years, which is clearly delayed and unexplained. At the time of mutating the entry, the concerned parties had given their consent and no objection was raised. This aspect supports the validity of the entry. It is also an admitted position of fact that a registered document is presumed to be valid unless it is set aside by a competent Court. In the present case, the ''Will'' has not been cancelled by any Court.
6.7) At this stage, it is required to be noted that the law on this aspect is well settled in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors., (1969) 2 SCC 187, wherein it has been consistently held that though no limitation period is prescribed for exercise of suo motu revisional powers, such powers must be Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined exercised within a reasonable period. Ordinarily, such reasonable period should not exceed three years. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), while exercising appellate jurisdiction, has rightly relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the District Collector.
7) In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, which read thus:
"13. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under s. 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under sSection 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised.
14. It seems to us that Section 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Section 211. Under s. 65 of the Code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Sections 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case the Commissioner set Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined aside the order of the 'Collector on October 12, 1961, i.e. more than a year after the order, and it seems to us that this order was passed too late.
15. We are also of the opinion that the order of the Commissioner should be quashed on the ground that he did not give any reasons for his conclusions. We have already extracted the passage above which shows that after reciting the various contentions he badly stated his conclusions without disclosing his reasons. In a matter of this kind the Commissioner should indicate his reasons, however, briefly, so that an aggrieved party may carry the matter further if so advised."
7.1) Further, as per the aforesaid submissions canvassed by the learned advocates of the respective, time and again the said view has been reiterated in catena of judicial pronouncements including the another judgment of this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Co-op. Housing Society v. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991 (1) GLR 113 which held that so far as proceedings under rule 108 of the rules, properly known as RTS proceedings are concerned, it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue record have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. Such mutations have to follow either the documents of title or the orders passed by competent authorities under special enactments. Independently the revenue authorities, as mentioned in rule 108 of the rules, cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transaction recorded in the entry are against the provisions of a particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9695/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by following the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely to be affected by any order that may be passed.
8) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) is just, proper, and in consonance with the settled principles of law, and does not warrant any interference by this Court. If interference is made at this stage, it would disturb a position which has continued for many years. Therefore, no interference is required. Hence, the present application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) GARVITA Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:58:31 IST 2026