JEETSING @ JESINGBHAI MANABHAI GARASIYA, DECD. THROUGH vs DALABHAI MANABHAI GARASIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7367 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
JEETSING @ JESINGBHAI MANABHAI GARASIYA, DECD. THROUGH &
ORS.
Versus
DALABHAI MANABHAI GARASIYA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YM THAKKAR(902) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,2
MS RAJVI SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 7
MR MAHARSHI PATEL ADVOCATE with
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4,6
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 19/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, 1950, by petitioners praying for
following prayers:-
"A) Your Lordships may be pleased
to issue appropriate writ, order or
direction to quashed and set aside
the order dated 06/01/2012
(29.12.2011) passed by the
Additional Secretary, Revenue Dept
(Appeals), State of Gujarat in
Revision Application No.11/2005
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
confirming the order passed by the
District Collector dated 27/01/2005
in Revision Application No.27 of
2004, as the same is arbitrary,
illegal, null and void;
B) Your Lordships may be pleased
to stay the further implementation,
execration and operation of the
order dated 06/01/2012
(29.12.2011) passed by the
Additional Secretary, Revenue Dept
(Appeals), State of Gujarat in
Revision Application No.11/2005
confirming the order passed by the
District Collector dated 27/01/2005
in Revision Application No.27 of
2004 pending admission, hearing
and final disposal of the present
petition;
C) Your Lordships may be pleased
to grant such other and further
relief/s as deemed fit in the interest
of justice;"
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Y. M. Thakkar for petitioners
and learned advocate Mr. Maharshi Patel on behalf of H. L.
Advocates for private respondents and learned AGP Ms. Rajvi
Shah for respondent No.7.
3. Brief facts of present case are as under:-
3.1. Petitioners and private respondents herein are the
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
descendants of one Lalabhai. As the father of petitioners passed
away at a very tender age, Manabhai Lalabhai, being younger
brother of petitioner’s father Valjibhai adopted petitioners as
sons. Upon death of Manabhai in the year 1956, names of all
legal heirs of Manabhai including petitioners were mutated in
revenue records vide Entry No.203 dated 12.10.1956 for the
land bearing revenue Survey Nos. 206, 209 and 210 of
Village : Sagadapada, Taluka : Fatepura, District : Dahod.
3.2. Respondents herein after 47 years of the mutation of
Entry No. 203, preferred RTS Appeal before Deputy Collector,
Dahod, challenging legality and validity of said entry. Learned
Deputy Collector vide order dated 24.06.2004 allowed the
appeal and quashed Entry No.203. Thereafter, Petitioners filed
revision before Deputy Collector, who vide order dated
27.01.2005 rejected the revision. Petitioners filed Revision
Application before Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals)
State Government, who by an order dated 06.01.2012 rejected
revision application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
said order, petitioners are before this Court by way of present
petition.
4. At the outset, Learned advocate for petitioners contended
that the revenue Survey Nos. 206, 209 and 210 situated at
Village : Sagadapada, Taluka : Fatepura, District : Dahod,
originally owned by grandfather of petitioners Lalabhai, and
upon his death the lands came in the share of sons of Lalabhai
namely Valjibhai – father of petitioners, Jalabhai and
Manabhai. As father of petitioners died when petitioners were
of very tender age, under tribal customary rituals, petitioners
were adopted by Manabhai as his sons. Manabhai expired in
1956 and mutation entry mutating names of all legal heirs of
Manabhai including petitioners with regard to land bearing
Survey Nos. 206, 209 and 210 came to be mutated vide entry
no.203 dated 12.10.1956. The said entry remained on record.
An Entry No.266 on 17.10.1961 was mutated in revenue
records that the land in question cannot be sold without prior
permission of Collector. Thereafter, Entry No. 605 dated
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
26.06.1982 was mutated in revenue records inserting
restrictions under Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code, 1879 ("for short" 'the Code'). At no point of time
respondents questioned Entry No. 203 and all of a sudden, in
the year 2003 i.e. after gap of 47 years respondents initiated
revenue proceedings before learned Deputy Collector
challenging Entry No. 203. Learned Deputy Collector
erroneously set aside Entry No. 203. The learned Collector as
well as learned SSRD also affirmed the order of learned Deputy
Collector.
5. It is submitted that all the three authorities paid no heed
to the aspect of delay of 47 years in questioning Entry No.
203. It is further submitted that during the pendency of
revenue proceedings, present petitioners filed Special Civil Suit
No. 209 of 2004 before learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Dahod for reliefs of partition, declaration and possession
against the private respondents. The said suit came to be
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
decreed on 15.05.2015. The respondents herein challenged the
judgment and decree dated 15.05.2015 by way of Civil Appeal
with an application for condonation of delay being Civil
Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2020 before learned
Second Additional District Judge, Dahod. By an order dated
20.07.2022, the application for condonation of delay came to
be rejected. Thereafter, the respondents have not challenged
the order of rejection of an application for condonation of
delay. It is therefore submitted that the Civil Court has decided
the right, title and interest regarding questioned lands in
appropriate civil proceedings and it has attained its finality
amongst petitioners and private respondents. It is therefore
submitted that the present petition be allowed and the
impugned orders be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate
for petitioners has placed on record copy of judgment and
decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 209 of 2004 dated
15.05.2015 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Dahod. The same is taken on record. Except above, no other
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
submissions were made by learned advocate for petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned advocate for private respondents
could not contradict the factual position surfaced on record
that the question right, title and interest with regard to Survey
Nos. 206, 209 and 210 has been put to rest by a judgment and
decree passed by competent Civil Court in Special Civil Suit
No. 209 of 2004. Except above, no other submissions were
made by learned advocate for private respondents.
7. Learned AGP for respondent No.7 has supported the
impugned orders and submitted that there is no illegality found
in the order passed by learned SSRD and therefore the petition
be dismissed. Except above, no other submissions were made
by learned AGP.
8. Having considered submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for respective parties and on perusal of the papers
placed on record, there is no dispute on a factual aspect that
the land in question was originally owned by Lalabhai who
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
had three sons namely Valjibhai, Jalabhai and Manabhai. Upon
death of Valjibhai, under customary rituals, petitioners were
adopted by Manabhai, younger brother of Valjibhai. Upon
death of Manabhai in the year 1956, names of petitioners as
well as other heirs of Manabhai came to be mutated by Entry
No. 203 dated 12.10.1956. After a gap of 47 years of the Entry
No. 203, private respondents filed RTS Appeal No. 48 of 2003
challenging legality and validity of Entry No. 203. The learned
Collector and learned SSRD affirmed the order dated
24.06.2004 passed by learned Deputy Collector cancelling Entry
No. 203. The settled proposition of law that proceedings
regarding cancellation of a mutation entry can be challenged
within a reasonable time. Reasonable time though not defined
under the Code, it has to be judged on case to case basis. In
the present case, there is a yawning gap of 47 years in
challenging legality and validity of Entry No 203. Such delay
requires to be viewed seriously, however, learned Deputy
Collector instead of viewing the question of delay on a serious
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
account, mechanically granted the Appeal and cancelled Entry
No. 203. It is interesting to note at this stage that in the RTS
Appeal, preferred by respondents, a feeble attempt is made to
explain delay of 47 years. It appears from the memo of Appeal
that respondents have asserted that they are cultivating land
and on 23.8.2003, entries were procured from Revenue
Department and thereafter preferred RTS Appeal. According to
respondents, the starting point of limitation is 23.08.2003 and
therefore the appeal is within limitation. If such contention is
accepted, it would open flood gates and the question of
limitation would remain academic. In catena of decisions, the
law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as
by various High Courts that in cases where a challenge is
made against an entry of mutation, aggrieved party must put
the revenue machinery into action as early as possible. The
same principle is applicable to revenue authorities by
exercising suo motu powers in questioning any mutation of
entry regarding breach of any revenue laws. The delay has to
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
be explained to the satisfaction of the Court, more particularly,
when a party is initiating revenue proceedings after a long
period. The present is the case where respondents, reasons best
known to them a woke up from the slumber and challenged
Entry No. 203 after 47 years. By questioning legality and
validity of any entry after 47 years of age speaks volumes
about the conduct of respondents. It is not believable that
respondents and petitioners being family members, respondents
were not aware about Entry No. 203 which is mutated on
12.10.1956. It is also to be noted that by Entry No.203, not
only names of petitioners were mutated but names of other
heirs of deceased Manabhai also came to be mutated by same
entry.
9. The mutation of names in revenue record is for the fiscal
purposes and this needs no further discussion. The right, title
and interest can only be decided by competent Civil Court and
merely names are reflected in revenue records would not be
construed as a title in favour of party whose name is mutated
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
in revenue records. The petitioners in the present case are
holding a decree of partition, declaration and possession
pursuant to a judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit
and the said judgment and decree has attained its finality in
view of the fact that the challenge made by respondents
against the judgment and decree came to be rejected on the
ground of delay. Thus, the petitioners have successfully
established in civil proceedings that they are the legal heirs of
deceased Manabhai and have interest in the questioned lands
with other heirs of deceased Manabhai.
10. In the wake of settled proposition of law and in view of
the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find substance in the
petition, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. The order dated
29.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Secretary,
Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat in Revision
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026
C/SCA/7367/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240412912012)
Application No.11/2005 and order dated 27.01.2005 passed by
learned Collector in Revision Application No.27 of 2004 are
hereby quashed and set aside. Entry No. 203 is hereby
restored.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
SHIVANI SHUKLA
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by SHIVANI SHUKLA(HC02350) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:40:58 IST 2026