[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Narottambhai Trikamdas Patel vs Special Secretary, Revenue Department ... on 16 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21385 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√ -
=======================================================
NAROTTAMBHAI TRIKAMDAS PATEL
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (APPEALS) & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR DHRUV D DESAI(9909) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-4
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 10
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7,8,9
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak waives service
of notice of rule for respondent nos.1 to 4.
2. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India as well as under
the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and
the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing and setting aside the order
dated 07.07.2017 passed by the respondent no.1 -
Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeal) in
Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/VLS/52/2017, the
order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the respondent
no.2 - Collector, Valsad in RTS Revision Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
No.103/2016 and the order dated 02.03.2016 passed
by the respondent no.3 - Deputy Collector, Pardi
in RTS Appeal Case No.180/2015, whereby the Entry
No.10755 mutated in favour of the petitioner on
the basis of the registered sale deed has been
cancelled.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the
present petition are as under,
3.1 The dispute is with regard to the land
bearing Block No.554, Survey No.43/6 situated
at moje Umargam, Valsad, which was new
tenured and restricted tenure land
(hereinafter referred to as the "land in
question").
3.2 The aforesaid land in question has been
purchased by the petitioner by way of
executing registered sale deed dated
08.10.2009 from the original land owners,
Bhaniben and Lilaben, who were the original
tenant of the land in question as also
declared by the revenue record.
3.3 Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for
conversion of land into NA and by an order
dated 21.10.2011, the said land has been
converted into NA on a condition to pay 40%
amount of premium and pursuant thereto, Entry
No.10479 came to be mutated in the revenue
record on 13.01.2012 and subsequently
certified also on 22.08.2012.
3.4 Thereafter, Entry No.10755 came to be mutated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
in the revenue record on 18.12.2012 on the
strength of the registered sale deed executed
in favour of the petitioner and certified
also on 27.02.2013.
3.5 However thereafter, on an anonymous
application, proceedings have been initiated
by the respondent no.3 - Deputy Collector
and, thereafter by an order dated 02.03.2016,
Entry No.10755 came to be cancelled and
remanded the matter back to the respondent -
Mamlatdar for fresh consideration.
3.6 Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner
approached the respondent no.2 - Collector by
filing RTS Appeal, which came to be dismissed
by an order dated 31.01.2017 and thereby
confirmed the order of the respondent no.3 -
Deputy Collector.
3.7 Against the aforesaid orders, the petitioner
approached the respondent no.1 - Secretary by
filing Revision Application, however, the
respondent no.1 - Secretary rejected the said
revision application by impugned orders. Thus
all those orders have been assailed by the
petitioners before this Hon'ble Court by
filing present petition.
4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Dhruv Desai for the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for
the respondent nos.1 to 4. Though served, none
appears for the private respondents.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
the petitioner is the bonafide purchase of the
land in question by way of executing registered
sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry No.10755
came to be mutated in the revenue record, which
has been cancelled by the revenue authorities by
impugned orders. He further submitted that in
fact, the land in question was new tenure land and
at the relevant point of time, necessary
permission for conversion of the land from new
tenure to old tenure was sought for, which was
granted by the revenue authority subject to
payment of 40% amount of premium and, thereafter,
Entry No.10479 came be mutated and certified also.
He submitted that thereafter, the aforesaid Entry
No.10755 was mutated and certified also, however
only because of the fact that some anonymous
application was moved, proceedings have been
initiated and, thereafter, proceedings were
undertaken and at the end of it, Entry No.10755
came to be cancelled by the respondent - Deputy
Collector and the said order was confirmed upto
respondent no.1 - Secretary, which has resulted
into filing of the present petition. He, however,
submitted that in fact, there is no breach as
alleged by the revenue authority and the entry was
mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed,
therefore, there was no reason for the authority
concerned to cancel the same.
6. Learned advocate, Mr. Desai further submitted that
so far as the initiation of proceeding against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
petitioner is concerned, basis of which is one of
the anonymous application stating inter alia that
the land in question is new tenure and restricted
impartible tenure land, therefore without
obtaining prior permission from the authority
concerned, the sale deed cannot be executed and
thus, there is breach of the provision of law. He,
therefore, submitted that in fact, by an order
dated 02.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 -
Deputy Collector, the matter was remanded back to
the learned Mamlatdar for fresh consideration and
pursuant thereto, necessary proceedings under
Section 84C of the Tenancy Act was initiated
against the petitioner and on conclusion of the
same, the respondent - Mamlatdar, by an order
dated 26.09.2018, was pleased to drop the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner and
thus, it can be said that there is no breach as
alleged and the sale transaction in favour of the
petitioner is legal one, copy of said order is
placed on record. He further submitted that in the
said proceedings, the issue with regard to status
of the petitioner being an agriculturist has also
been considered and, thereafter, the proceedings
have been dropped. At this stage, he submitted
that in fact, the petitioner is ready and willing
to pay amount of premium as may be fixed by the
revenue authority. He, therefore, submitted that
in view of the above development took place
pending this petition, the impugned orders require
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned advocate, Mr. Desai, at this stage,
submitted that there is no dispute about the
mutation of Entry No.10755 in the revenue record
on the basis of the registered sale deed, which
has been cancelled on an anonymous application
submitted by someone. He, however, submitted that
in view of the numerous decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court, it is
settled law that entry on the basis of the
registered document has to be mutated and
certified also. Learned advocate for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions
rendered by this Court in case of Jhaverbhai
Savjibhai Patel Through P.O.A. Holder Ashok J.
Patel Vs. Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel & Ors.,
reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2233, in case of
Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1370, in case of
Jayantilal Jethalal Soni Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2005 (4) GLR 3354 and in case of
Ratilal Chunilal Solanki & Ors. Vs. Shantilal
Chunilal Solanki & Ors., reported in 1996 (1) GLH
816. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned
orders passed by the revenue authorities be set
aside and thereby direction be issued to the
concerned respondent authority to mutate Entry
no.10755 in the revenue record.
8. Learned AGP Mr. Pathak appearing for the
respondents have opposed the present petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
contending inter alia that the impugned orders
passed by the revenue authorities are just, legal
and based upon sound principle of law and do not
require any interference at the hands of this
Hon'ble Court as no error of law has been
committed by them. He further submitted that in
fact, by an order passed by the respondent no.3 -
Deputy Collector, the matter has been remanded
back to the respondent - Mamlatdar and the said
order has been confirmed by the revenue
authorities, therefore, there is no error as
stated by learned advocate for the petitioner. He,
however, submitted that there is no dispute about
dropping of the proceedings by the respondent -
Mamlatdar by an order dated 26.09.2018.
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
parties and having gone through the material
placed on record, it has emerged that the
petitioner has purchased the land in question from
the original land owners, who are the original
tenants declared by the revenue authorities, by
way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant
thereto, Entry No.10755 came to be mutated in the
revenue record and subsequently certified also.
Not only that, on an application, the said land
was converted into old tenure land from new tenure
land subject to payment of 40% amount of premium.
However thereafter on an anonymous application,
aforesaid Entry No.10755 was taken into suo motu
by the respondent no.3 - Deputy Collector, who by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
an order dated 02.03.2016 cancelled the said entry
and remanded the matter back to the respondent -
Mamlatdar for fresh consideration, therefore, the
said order was challenged before the respondent
no.2 - Collector and then, before the respondent
no.1 - Secretary, who confirmed the order of the
respondent no.3 - Deputy Collector, therefore, all
those three orders have been challenged before
this Hon'ble Court by filing present petition.
10. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
here in the present case, the dispute is with
regard to the cancellation of entry mutated on the
basis of the registered sale deed and law in this
regard is clear that entry has to be mutated and
certified by the revenue authority on the basis of
the registered document and here the entry
impugned is also mutated on the basis of the
registered sale deed. Therefore, the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by those decision.
11. In a decision in case of Ratilal Chunilal Solanki
(supra), this Court has held that the revenue
authorities cannot decide the disputed question of
title to any property. Mutation proceedings cannot
be converted into proceeding for deciding the
question of title, which can lie only before the
competent civil court.
12. In a decision in case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai
Patel (supra), this Court has observed in Para
Nos.9 and 10 as under,
"9. It is the consistent view taken by this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
Court in catena of judgments that the
revenue authorities while dealing with RTS
proceedings had no jurisdiction and/or
authority to decide the question of title
and if there is any dispute with regard to
title the parties are to be relegated to
the Civil Court. As held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Gujarat VS. Patel Raghav Natha - AIR 1969
SC Page 1297 and judgment of this Court in
the case of Ratilal Chunilal Solanki & Ors.
Vs. Shantilal Chunilal Solanki - 1996(2)
GLR 525 and Siddharth B. Shah vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in 1999(3) GLR Page 2527,
the revenue authorities cannot decide the
disputed question of title to the property
and they have to merely go by the documents
produced before them. Even this Court has
held in the case of Nathabhai Meraman Darji
(Supra) that when a document of registered
sale deed is produced before the authority,
the revenue authorities are bound to give
effect to the same and are not required to
decide the question of title.
10. Even this Court in a recent judgment in the
case of L.R.s of Popat Khima Ramani and
Ors. vs. Collector, Rajkot and Ors.,
reported in 2003(1) GLH 30, has considered
the scope of revenue authorities while
deciding the question with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
mutation entry and the powers under Section
135 and Rule 108, has held that revenue
authorities are not to decide the question
about title and the revenue authorities are
to make necessary entries on the basis of
decision of Civil Court. It is further held
in the said judgment that the revenue
authorities are invested with limited
powers under Section 135 and they cannot
assume to themselves certain powers
conferred on them by law and they cannot
assume jurisdiction of Civil Court. The
revenue authorities cannot decide validity
of transaction on touchstone of statutory
provision occurring in some enactment and
that they cannot decide disputed question
of title. In fact, this Court has gone to
the extent that when a dispute as to the
title arises the parties have to go to the
competent Civil Court. In the present case,
in fact the Civil Suit is pending between
the parties and the Civil Court is to
decide all these questions which are raised
by the petitioner in the present Special
Civil Application with regard to validity
of the power of attorney, the genuineness
of sale deed, and the authority of power of
attorney holder on the basis of the power
of attorney. Considering the fact that the
suit is pending between the parties and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
that the petitioner has challenged the
legality and validity of the sale deed
before the Civil Court and that there is an
injunction in the said Suit, in fact the
Secretary (Appeals) has tried to strike the
balance and has tried to protect the
interests of all the parties by directing
that the factum of injunction granted by
the Civil Court should also be noted in the
entry and that the entry in favour of
respondent No.5 would be subject to the
ultimate outcome of the suit pending
between the parties in which the legality
and validity of the sale deed is
challenged. It cannot be said that there is
any illegality committed by the Secretary
(Appeals). On the contrary, the judgment
and order passed by the revisional
authority, i.e. Secretary (Appeals) is in
consonance with the provisions of Section
135 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and 108
of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the
view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court with regard to the
powers of revenue authorities while dealing
with the question of mutation entries. The
revenue authorities are not required to
consider with regard to the genuineness of
the sale deed, the powers and authority of
the power of attorney holder under the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
power of attorney and the question with
regard to the title. What is required to be
done by the Sub-Registrar at the time when
the sale deed was executed cannot be
permitted to be done by the Mamlatdar
and/or revenue authorities while deciding
the question with regard to mutation entry,
more particularly the entry in the record
of rights is only having a presumptive
value and only for a fiscal purpose of
recovering and payment of revenue and it
does not confer any right, title or
interest in favour of any party in the
property."
13. In a decision in case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai
Patel (supra), this Court has observed in Para
No.7 as under,
"7. The very decision came to be considered by
this Court even in the matter, where the
validity of the registered sale deed was
under challenge by preferring civil suit.
This Court by relying upon the earlier
decision in case of "Jayantilal Jethalal
Soni v. State of Gujarat" (supra), in
Special Civil Application No.14037/2004
dated 24.12.2004 in case of "Hasmukhbhai
Kasturchand Shah v. Heirs of Dahiben Wd/o
Shanabhai Bhulabhai & Hirabhai" has further
made observations at paragraphs 4 and 5 as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
"4. Therefore, so far as the entries which
are based on registered sale deed are
concerned, the same cannot be
cancelled in toto and it deserves to
be restored in the revenue record with
the clarification that they shall be
subject to the outcome of the
proceedings under Section 84C of the
Tenancy Act which as per the
contention of Mr. Barot are pending
before the Revenue Tribunal. So far as
entry No. 1900 dated 26.2.1972 is
concerned, the same was not directly
the subject matter of the proceedings
under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act
which were initiated in respect to
three registered sale deeds on the
basis of which entries No. 2067, 2068
and 2248 were mutated in the revenue
record. It appears that after entry
No.1900 dated 26.2.1972 the very land
is sold by registered sale deed by
deceased Dahiben through power-of-
attorney holder Hirabhai Shanabhai and
the sale deed is not signed by
Hirabhai Krishnakantbhai, but only a
reference is made to the entry No.1900
dated 26.2.1972 in the succession of
title of the property. The land is
sold subsequently by the owner who is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
shown in the revenue record. But even
if it is the case of the contesting
respondents through Mr.Barot that
entry No.1900 dated 26.2.1972 is in
breach of provisions of Section 84C of
the Tenancy Act, then it would be for
the appropriate authority under the
said act to initiate the proceedings.
In any event, the fact remains that
the entry has continued for a long
period and thereafter the land is
already sold by registered sale deed.
Therefore, the exercise of the power
for cancellation of the entry which in
view of the subsequent sale of the
land in question by the registered
sale deed dated 21.2.1976, cannot be
said as proper and justified on the
part of the authority. If the
contesting respondents who are
represented by Mr.Barot are asserting
any right in the property, it would be
for them to prefer appropriate
proceedings by preferring Civil Suit
or they may resort to appropriate
proceedings for identifying their
rights, if any, in the property. It is
well settled even otherwise also, the
exercise of suo motu power cannot be
undertaken after an unreasonable
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
period and further revenue entries are
having values for fiscal purposes and
they never confer any title, nor do
they alter any right in the property,
which otherwise exists as per the
provisions of Transfer of Properties
Act or the relevant law for the time
being in force.
5. Under the above circumstances, the
impugned orders passed by the revenue
authorities cancelling the entry
No.1900 and subsequent entry No.2248
dated 16.8.1976 and entry No.2067
dated 20th September, 1975 and No.2068
dated 20th September, 1975 are
restored to the revenue record with
the clarification and the
qualification that the same shall be
subject to the outcome of the Regular
Civil Suit No.4180 of 2004 and No.9275
of 2003 pending in the concerned Civil
Court and also subject to the outcome
of the proceedings of revision pending
before the Tribunal in connection with
the proceedings under Section 84C of
the Tenancy Act. It is further made
clear that it would be open to the
aggrieved parties to pursue their
rights, if any, pertaining to the
property/ies in respect of which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
entry/ies is/are ordered to be
restored by resorting to appropriate
proceedings in the Civil Court, either
in the pending Suit or by substantive
suit as may be permissible in law."
14. In a decision in case of Jayantilal Jethalal Soni
(supra), this Court has observed in Para Nos.9 and
10 as under,
"9. In view of the above, it cannot said that
the orders passed by all the authorities on
the basis that the Mamlatdar has not
inquired into the aforesaid three aspects
namely as to whether there is any breach of
the provisions of the Prevention of
Fragmentation Act or the provisions of
Tenancy Act, are absolutely without any
basis and the orders can be maintained only
to the extent that in case it is found by
the Mamlatdar after remand that there are
prima facie breach of the other enactment
by the transfer in question, the revenue
authority exercising power under the Code
may refer the matter to the appropriate
authority under the other enactment or may
relegate the affected party to resort to
appropriate proceedings under the other
enactment and the entry may be considered
subject to the final outcome in the
proceedings under the other enactment, as
observed hereinabove in earlier paragraphs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and
considering the facts and circumstances, I
find that the order passed by all the
authorities i.e. Dy. Collector, Collector
as well as the State Government deserve to
be modified by observing that the Mamlatdar
shall consider the matter in light of the
observations made by this Court hereinabove
in this judgement and shall take
appropriate decision in accordance with law
after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners as well as to respondent No. 4.
The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken
by the Mamlatdar as early as possible
preferably within six months from the date
of receipt of the order of this Court.
Until the decision is rendered by the
Mamlatdar, status-quo regarding the revenue
record of the land in question shall be
maintained."
15. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid proposition of
law as well as the facts of the present case, in
my considered opinion, the revenue authorities
while exercising the powers under the revenue
jurisdiction appear to have exceeded its
jurisdiction by cancelling the entry mutated in
favour of the petitioner on the basis of the
registered sale deed. The entire crux for
cancellation of the mutation of entry is on
account of breach of condition, which was brought
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
to their notice by way of anonymous application.
However as stated above, the proceedings
instituted against the petitioner under the
Tenancy Act have been dropped by the respondent -
Mamlatdar. Therefore in my considered opinion,
under the provision of Section 135-C of the
Revenue Code, it is the duty of the revenue
authorities to give effect of registered sale deed
in the revenue records at the first instance and
it ought not to have been cancelled, which has
been done in the present case.
16. So far as the dispute arisen out of anonymous
application with regard to purchase of the land
without prior permission of the competent
authority in view of the fact that the land was
new tenure land is concerned, it is required to be
noted that pursuant to the order dated 02.03.2016
passed by the respondent no.2 - Deputy Collector,
while cancelling entry, matter was remanded back
to respondent - Mamlatdar for fresh consideration
and pursuant thereto, tenancy proceedings were
initiated and on conclusion of the same, by an
order dated 26.09.2018, those proceedings under
the Tenancy Act have been dropped by the
respondent - Mamlatdar, therefore, the issue
raised on the basis of the anonymous application
is no longer survive now because in the said
proceedings, the issue with regard to the status
of the petitioner being an agriculturist has also
been considered and, thereafter, the said tenancy
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21385/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
proceedings have been dropped, therefore, it
cannot be said that there is breach as alleged by
the revenue authority.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the present case, the present petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2017
passed by the respondent no.1 - Special Secretary,
Revenue Department (Appeal) in Revision
Application No.MVV/HKP/VLS/52/2017, the order
dated 31.01.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 -
Collector, Valsad in RTS Revision Case No.103/2016
and the order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the
respondent no.3 - Deputy Collector, Pardi in RTS
Appeal Case No.180/2015 are hereby quashed and set
aside. The respondent - Mamlatdar shall mutate
Entry No.10755 in the revenue record on the basis
of the registered sale deed produced by the
petitioner. It is clarified that this Court has
not considered the aspect of amount of premium to
be paid by the petitioner for conversion of the
land and as stated by learned advocate for the
petitioner, he is ready and willing to pay the
amount, that may be fixed by the authority
concerned.
18. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
