BHIKHABHAI ZAVERBHAI KOLI vs SPECIAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (DISPUTES)

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5405 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5405 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHIKHABHAI ZAVERBHAI KOLI & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (DISPUTES) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR. MRUGESH A BAROT(6709) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) Nos. 1 - 4
REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Respondent(s) Nos. 5.1,5.2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) Nos.6.1 - 6.5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

Date : 02/07/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have
sought for the following main relief:
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
direction quashing and setting aside the
impugned order 31.07.2017 passed by the learned
Special Secretary Revenue Department (Disputes),
Ahmedabad in Revision Application
No.HKP/SNR/41/2016, as well as order passed by
the learned District Collector, Surendranagar
dated 21.07.2016 and further be pleased to
restore the entry nos. 331 and 493 mutated in
the revenue record”
2. The facts of the case of the petitioners, as
mentioned in the petition, can be summarized in a
nutshell as under:
2.1. As per the case of the petitioners, the land
bearing revenue survey no. 54 admeasuring hectare
2.86.32 of village Chamaradi, Tal: Chuda, Dist.
Surendranagar (it shall hereinafter be referred to as
the ‘subject land’) was holding by one Shri Bava
Haridas Karsandas in the capacity of Barkhalidar. It
further transpires from the revenue record that name
of late Shri Bava Haridas Karsandas reflected as
individual owner of the land in question.
2.2. The said Shri Bava Haridas Karsandas had sold
the subject land by executing a registered sale deed
in favour of one Shri Vora Ghanibhai Remanbhai on
23.03.1959 and entry with respect to the aforesaid
sale deed came to be mutated in the revenue record
vide entry no. 331 on 01.05.1965 and subsequently it
was certified by the competent authority on
13.01.1966 after following due procedure of law.
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
2.3. Thereafter, Shri Vora Ganibhai Remanbhai sold
the subject land in favour of father of the
petitioners by way of executing a registered sale
deed dated 09.05.1977, pursuant to which, an entry
No.493 came to be mutated on 06.06.1977 and the same
was certified on 13.07.1977. Thus, the petitioners
are in possession and occupation of the subject land
since 1977 and during the interregnum period, total
five promulgations were carried out by the competent
revenue authority and all the revenue records were
scrutinized at the relevant time of promulgations.
2.4. The Collector issued a show cause notice dated
20.01.2015 while exercising the powers under Rule
108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, whereby, the
petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why
entry Nos. 331 and 493 may not be cancelled. On
receipt of the said notice, petitioners remained
present before the Collector and submitted their
detailed reply/submissions. However, the Collector,
vide order dated 21.07.2016, cancelled Mutation Entry
Nos. 331 and 493 primarily on the ground that the
subject land belonged to a religious trust and that
late Shri Hiradas Bava held the land only in the
capacity of an administrator. The Collector further
held that, in view of the Government Resolution dated
09.04.2010, the custodian or administrator of a
religious trust has no authority to transfer,
mortgage, or otherwise alienate the trust property.
Consequently, the sale effected in favour of the
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, and
subsequent transfer in favour of the petitioners, is
not permissible. Accordingly, mutation entry Nos. 331
and 493 were cancelled.
2.5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid order dated 21.07.2016 of the Collector,
the petitioners have preferred a revision application
before the learned Special Secretary, Revenue
Department (Appeals). However, the said revision also
came to be dismissed by the SSRD vide order dated
31.07.2017. Hence, present petition is preferred
assailing the orders passed by the Collector as well
as SSRD.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the
petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave for the
respondent authorities.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit submits that
the subject land came to be sold by Shri Bava Haridas
Karsandas in the capacity of Barkhalidar in favour of
the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners in the
year 1959 by executing a registered sale deed,
accordingly, entry No.331 has been mutated in the
revenue record on 01.05.1965 and thereafter the
subject land has been sold by the predecessor-in-
title of the petitioners in favour of father of the
petitioners by way of executing a registered sale
deed and accepting the amount of consideration and
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
accordingly entry No.493 came to be mutated in the
revenue record on 06.06.1977. However, the Collector
had exercised the suo motu powers almost 57 years
after the execution of the registered sale deed by
late Shri Bava Haridas Karsandas in favour of
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. He submits
that land came to be transferred in favour of
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners in the year
1959, whereas, Collector had issued show cause notice
on 20.01.2015. Thus, the exercise of suo motu powers
by the Collector almost after 57 years is without any
jurisdiction. He submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court
as well as this Court have, in numerous case laws,
held that initiation of action by the statutory
authorities beyond a reasonable time would not
justify their act and render the exercise arbitrary.
He further submits that where no time limit is
prescribed for exercise of suo motu powers under a
statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable
time and as per the celebrated decision of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel
Raghav Natha, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 ,
initiation of proceedings after a period of one year
is considered to be too late. He, therefore, submits
that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Patel Raghav Natha (supra), would
squarely applicable in the facts of the present case
and solely on that ground the impugned orders passed
by the Collector as well as SSRD are required to be
quashed and set aside.
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
5. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submitted
that, while cancelling the mutation entries in
question, the Collector placed reliance on the
Government Resolution dated 09.04.2010. However, the
said Government Resolution cannot be applied
retrospectively so as to invalidate the transactions
that had already been concluded prior to its
issuance. He submitted that the petitioners are in
possession of the subject land since 1977 i.e. 38
years before the date of issuance of the show cause
notice by the Collector. Thus, for the sake of
argument and without admitting it, even if the case
of the respondent authorities is to be believed, in
that event also the petitioners are in possession of
the subject land since last more than 30 years. Thus,
the principle of adverse possession would be
applicable in the instant case.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit further submitted
that, by the impugned orders, the concerned revenue
authorities merely cancelled the revenue entries that
had been mutated on the basis of the registered sale
deeds. The cancellation was effected solely on the
ground that the sale was invalid and a nullity,
despite there being no challenge to the registered
sale deeds. He further submitted that the revenue
authorities had neither initiated any independent
proceedings for cancellation of the sale deeds nor
had any competent court declared the sale deeds to be
invalid or a nullity. Thus, the sale in favour of the
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners and
subsequently in favour of the petitioners attains
finality. He submitted that it is well settled that
the mere allegation that a transaction is a nullity
does not absolve the concerned revenue authorities
from the requirement of initiating suo motu
proceedings within a reasonable period. He contended
that the initiation of suo motu proceedings after an
inordinate delay of nearly 57 years cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be regarded as having been
initiated within a reasonable period.
7. Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit further submitted
that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers who
acquired the subject land after duly verifying the
revenue records. He submitted that, in the
circumstances, the provisions of Section 135J of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code would squarely apply to the
facts of the present case. He has drawn the attention
of this Court to the aforesaid provision and
submitted that section 135J stipulates that an entry
in the record of rights, and a certified entry in the
register of mutations shall be presumed to be true
until the contrary is proved or a new entry is
lawfully substituted therefor. Thus, the petitioners,
by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be the
bona fide purchasers, who purchased the subject land
after verifying the revenue record.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit has further
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
submitted that during the interregnum period, the
Collector had carried out at least six promulgations
and thereby scrutinized the revenue record and
certified the entries. He submitted that unless and
until his promulgation certification is set aside,
the Collector is not empowered to pass any adverse
order. He, therefore, submits that in view of the
aforesaid overall factual matrix of the case, the
petition may be allowed by quashing and setting aside
the impugned orders passed by the Collector as well
as SSRD and restoring the entries in question.
9. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave
vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted
that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded
by the Collector as well as the SSRD. He, therefore,
contended that no interference is warranted by this
Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. He
further submitted that the subject land, in fact,
belonged to a religious trust, and that late Shri
Hiradas Bava held the land only in the capacity as an
administrator of the trust. He contended that, in
view of the Government Resolution dated 09.04.2010, a
custodian or administrator of a religious trust has
no authority to transfer, mortgage, or otherwise
alienate the trust property. He submitted that the
administration of the trust property had merely been
entrusted to late Shri Hiradas Bava by the trustees,
and that he did not possess any right, title, or
interest in the subject land at the relevant point of
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
time. Consequently, he had no authority to execute
the registered sale deed in favour of the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. He therefore
submitted that the said act of Shri Hiradas Bava was
per se illegal, unjust, improper, and contrary to the
documents available on record. He further contended
that immediately upon the relevant facts coming to
the notice of the concerned revenue authorities, suo
motu proceedings were initiated by issuance of a show
cause notice to the petitioners. After scrutinising
and verifying the records and other material
available on record, the competent authority arrived
at the conclusion that certain revenue entries had
been mutated in violation of the statutory provisions
and, therefore, such entries were liable to be
cancelled and accordingly the entries were cancelled.
He further submitted that it is a settled proposition
of law that where a revenue entry has been mutated on
the strength of a forged or fabricated document, such
an entry is a nullity in the eyes of law. He
contended that the concerned revenue authorities are
empowered to exercise suo motu powers to cancel such
an entry immediately upon the fraud or illegality
coming to their notice. He submitted that it is for
this reason that the legislature has not prescribed
any limitation period for the initiation of suo motu
proceedings for cancellation of such entries. He,
therefore, submitted that, having regard to the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties and having considered the
materials placed on record, it transpires that one
Shri Bava Haridas Karsandas had sold the subject land
by executing a registered sale deed in favour of one
Shri Vora Ghanibhai Remanbhai on 23.03.1959 and
accordingly entry No. 331 came to be mutated on
01.05.1965, which was certified on 13.01.1966.
Thereafter, said Shri Vora Ganibhai Remanbhai sold
the subject land to the father of the petitioners by
way of executing a registered sale deed dated
09.05.1977, pursuant to which, an entry No.493 came
to be mutated on 06.06.1977 and the same was
certified on 13.07.1977. The petitioners are in
possession and occupation of the subject land since
1977. However, in the year 2015, the Collector issued
a show cause notice to the petitioners and thereby
initiated suo motu proceedings against the
petitioners. It transpires from the record that the
Collector, vide impugned order dated 21.07.2016 ,
cancelled the aforesaid entry Nos.331 and 493, inter
alia observing that the subject land belonged to a
religious trust and late Shri Hiradas Bava held the
land only in the capacity of an administrator. The
Collector further held that, in view of the
Government Resolution dated 09.04.2010, the custodian
or administrator of a religious trust has no
authority to transfer, mortgage, or otherwise
alienate the trust property. The said order of the
Collector is also confirmed by the learned SSRD.
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Thus, it transpires that the concerned revenue
authority had initiated the suo motu proceedings
almost 57 years after the execution of first
registered sale deed by Shri Hiradas Bava in favour
of one Shri Vora Ganibhai Remanbhai i.e. the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. It is well
settled that initiation of action by the statutory
authorities beyond a reasonable time would not
justify their act and render the exercise arbitrary.
As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Patel Raghav Natha (supra) , where no time
limit is prescribed for exercise of suo motu powers
under a statute, it should be exercised within a
reasonable time and initiation of suo motu
proceedings after a period of 57 years cannot be said
to be initiated within a reasonable time. It is also
pertinent to note that the entries in question, which
were mutated pursuant to the execution of the
registered sale deeds, were certified by the
concerned revenue authority after verifying and
scrutinizing the record and therefore the stand taken
by the revenue authorities that as soon as the said
fact has come to the notice of the concerned revenue
authority, the suo motu proceedings have been
initiated by the said authority by issuing show cause
notice to the petitioners, is not believable and
palatable one.
11. At this juncture, I would like to refer to an
rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Mustufakhan R. Pathan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat ,
reported in 2016 (3) GLR 2649 , wherein, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, observed and held as
under:
24. As for the delay in the initiation of the
revision proceedings, the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat
Vs. Patel Raghav Natha (Supra) and Janardan D.
Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra) would be
squarely applicable to the present case. There
has been a delay of almost seven years in the
exercise of revisional powers under Section
211 of the Code by respondent No.1, which is
undoubtedly an unreasonable period of time. No
mitigating circumstances or explanation is to
be found in the impugned order. For this
reason as well, the impugned order is legally
unsustainable.
12. It is also pertinent to note that the concerned
revenue authorities merely cancelled the revenue
entries that had been mutated on the basis of the
registered sale deeds. The cancellation was effected
solely on the ground that the sale was invalid and a
nullity, despite there being no challenge to the
registered sale deeds. Thus, it transpires that the
revenue authorities had neither initiated any
independent proceedings for cancellation of the sale
deeds nor had any competent court declared the sale
deeds to be invalid or a nullity. Thus, in the
opinion of this Court, the sale in favour of the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioners and
subsequently in favour of the petitioners attains
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
finality.
13. At this juncture, I would like to rely and refer
provision of Section 135J of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code, which reads as under:
“135J. Presumption of correctness of entries in
record of rights and register of mutations.-
An entry in the record of rights, and a
certified entry in the register of mutations
shall be presumed to be true until the contrary
is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted
therefor.”
14. It is the case of the petitioners that they are
the bona fide purchasers, who purchased the subject
land from their predecessor-in-title by way of a
registered sale deed and before entering into the
sale transaction, they had verified the revenue
record and therefore as per the provisions of Section
135J, in absence of any contrary entry, they had a
reason to believe that the entries in record of
rights and register of mutations were correct and
therefore no fault can be attributed to the present
petitioners. I am in complete agreement with the
aforesaid submission canvassed by leaned advocate Mr.
Purohit for the petitioners.
15. In view of the aforesaid overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am of the
considered view that the action on the part of the
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026

C/SCA/5405/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
concerned revenue authority for initiation of suo
motu proceedings after 57 years is not justifiable
one. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned
orders passed by the Collector as well as SSRD are
hereby quashed and set aside. The entry Nos.331 and
493 mutated in the revenue record qua the subject
land are restored. Rule is made absolute.
16. In view of disposal of the main petition, civil
application does not survive for adjudication.
Accordingly, it stands disposed of.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:35 IST 2026