GOVINDBHAI BAJIBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9064 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10132 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√ --
=======================================================
GOVINDBHAI BAJIBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance: -
Special Civil Application No.9064/2015
MR ASIT B JOSHI(2567) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for the
Respondent(s) No. 8.1,8.2
MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 8
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.
12,13,6,7,8.1.1,8.1.2,8.1.3,8.1.4,8.2.1,8.2.2,8.2.3,8.2.4,8.3,
8.4,8.5,8.6,8.7
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,5,9
Special Civil Application No.10132/2015
MR HM PARIKH(574) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for the
Respondent(s) No. 4,4.1,4.2
MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,9
MR ASIT B JOSHI(2567) for the Respondent(s) No. 7,8
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4.1.1,4.1.2,4.1.3,4.1.4,4.2.1,4.2.2,4.2.3,4.2.4,4.3,4.4,4.
5,4.6,4.7,5,6.1,6.2,6.3,6.4
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

Date : 13/07/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
1. Since the issue involved in both these petitions
related to the mutation of entries in respect of
same land in question, both these petitions are
heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment.
2. By filing Special Civil Application No.9064/2015,
the petitioners have challenged the order dated
05.03.2015 passed by the respondent – SSRD in
Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/MSN/8/2010 as well
as the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the
respondent – Collector, Mehsana.
3. By filing Special Civil Application No.10132/2015,
the petitioners have challenged the order dated
25.03.2015/05.03.2015 passed by the respondent –
SSRD in Revision Application No.13/2010 as well as
the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the
respondent – Collector, Mehsana.
4. The facts of the case in brief are as under,
4.1 One Sathwara Mohanbhai Jivabhai was the owner
and occupier of land bearing Survey Nos.6,
164 and 165 situated at moje Vijapur,
Taluka : Vijapur, District : Mehsana. Out of
aforesaid survey numbers, land bearing Survey
No.6 was purchased by him from one Ishwarbhai
Manchandbhai by way of executing registered
sale deed and thus, the said land was self-
acquired land of the original land owner.
4.2 The said Mohanbhai Sathwara was having three
sons viz., Chandulal Mohanlal; Ambalal
Mohanlal and Chimanalal Mohanlal and five
Page 2 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
daughters viz., Manguben (the respondent
no.5); Shardaben (the respondent no.6);
Savitaben (the respondent no.7); Chanchiben
(the respondent no.8); and Raiben (the
respondent no.9). Out of aforesaid legal
heirs of said Mohanbhai Sathwara, one of the
daughters viz., Raiben passed away in the
year 1977, whereas one of the sons viz.,
Chimanlal passed away long back.
4.3 Thereafter, family arrangement was made,
which was reduced into writing by way of
partition deed on 30.05.1983 executed by the
original land owner, Mohanbhai Sathwara
during his life time and thereby aforesaid
lands were partitioned amongst the family
members and the said partition deed was never
challenged by either of the parties.
4.4 Accordingly, Entry No.10512 came to be
mutated in the revenue record based on
partition deed after following due procedure
of law.
4.5 On 08.08.1989, the said Mohanbhai Sathwara
passed away and after his sad demise, as per
the partition deed, land bearing Survey No.6
admeasuring 2A – 3G was distributed amongst
three sons and accordingly, Entry No.14808
came to be mutated in the revenue record on
11.01.2005 in favour of the respondent nos.10
to 12 based in partition deed. Thus as per
the said family arrangement, 1/3 share of
Page 3 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
land bearing Survey No.6 came into the share
of the respondent no.11 herein i.e. land
admeasuring 00-55-89 Sq.Mtrs. and
accordingly, Entry No.14823 came to be
mutated in the revenue record on 20.01.2005.
4.6 However against the mutation of the said
entry, the respondent nos.12 and 13 had
raised objection, however, the said
objections were turned down by the respondent
– Mamlatdar by an order dated 30.07.2005 and,
thereafter, said Entry No.14823 came to be
certified by the revenue authority in favour
of the respondent no.11. Even the said order
of the respondent – Mamlatdar was never
challenged by anyone, therefore, the said
order has attained finality.
4.7 The petitioners, being the agriculturists,
have purchased said land, which came to the
share of the respondent no.11, which was old
tenure land and there was no restriction over
the said land, by way of executing registered
sale deed on 17.08.2005 on payment of entire
sale consideration and accordingly, Entry
No.15065 came to be mutated in the revenue
record on 23.08.2005 in favour of the
petitioners based on registered sale deed,
which was subsequently certified on
02.12.2005 after following due procedure of
law.
4.8 However after a period of more than 20 years,
Page 4 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
the Power of Attorney Holder of the
respondent nos.5 to 9 had challenged Entry
No.10512 by way of filing RTS Appeal
No.14/2007 before the Prant officer, Mehsana,
who by an order dated 24.09.2007, dismissed
the said Appeal.
4.8 Against the aforesaid order, Revision
Application No.50/2007 came to be preferred
before the respondent – Collector, who by an
order dated 31.05.2008 dismissed the said
Revision Application and thereby confirmed
Entry Nos.10512, 14808, 14823 and 15065.
4.9 Against the aforesaid order, Revision
Application No.13/2008 came to be preferred
before the respondent – SSRD, who by an order
dated 29.07.2009, remanded the matter back
before the respondent – Collector for fresh
consideration.
4.10 After the remand, the matter was taken up,
however, the respondent – Collector, by an
order dated 29.12.2009, allowed the said
revision application and thereby cancelled
all aforesaid entries.
4.11 Therefore being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, the petitioners of Special Civil
Application No.9064/2015 preferred Revision
Application No.MVV/HKP/MSN/8/2010 and the
petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.10132/2015 preferred Revision Application
No.MVV/HKP/MSN/13/2010 before the respondent
Page 5 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
– SSRD, where both the revision applications
were clubbed together and by common impugned
order, the said revision applications came to
be rejected.
5. Heard learned advocate, Asit B. Joshi for the
petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.9064/2015, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. H.M.
Parikh assisted by learned advocate, Mr. H.H.
Parikh for the petitioners of Special Civil
Application No.10132/2015 and learned AGP Mr. Jay
Trivedi for the respondents – State authorities.
Though served, none appears for the private
respondents.
6. Learned advocate, Mr. Joshi appearing for the
petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.9064/2015 has referred to the facts of the
present case and submitted that the petitioners
are the bonafide purchasers of the land in
question by way of executing registered sale deed
and that too, on payment of entire sale
consideration to the respondent no.11 herein and
even at the time of entering into sale
transaction, all necessary procedure as required
under the law have been followed. He submitted
that the land in question was purchased by one
Mohanbhai Sathwara from the original land owner by
way of executing registered sale deed and on the
basis of the said registered sale deed, he became
the absolute owner and occupier of the land in
question and accordingly, entry came to be mutated
Page 6 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
in the revenue record and thus, the land in
question was self-acquired property of said
Mohanbhai Sathwara. He submitted that the said
Mohanbhai Sathwara was also possessing land
bearing Survey Nos.164 and 165. He submitted that
during his life time, family arrangement in
respect of the aforesaid three parcels of land had
taken place, which was reduced into writing by way
of partition deed on 30.05.1983 and thereby, share
of each member of the family was decided and
accordingly, Entry No.10512 came to be mutated in
the revenue record on 17.04.1987 recording
partition of the land owned by said Mohanbhai
Sathwara. He submitted that one of the daughters
viz., Raiben passed away in the year 1977, whereas
one of the sons viz., Chimanlal also passed away
long back. He submitted that thereafter on
08.08.1989, the said Mohanbhai Sathwara passed
away and, thereafter, the family members had
parted with the land as per the partition deed and
by the said arrangement, 1/3 share of the land
admeasuring 2A – 3G (00-55-89 Sq.Mtrs.) came to
the share of the respondent no.11. He submitted
that Entry No.14808 came to be mutated in the
revenue record with regard to the partition of the
land between the family members as per partition
deed on 11.01.2005, whereas Entry No.14823 came to
be mutated with regard to the share owned by the
respondent no.11 by way of partition deed on
20.01.2005 and thus, he became the absolute owner
Page 7 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
and occupier of the land in question. He submitted
that however against the mutation of Entry
No.14823 in favour of the respondent no.11, the
respondent nos.12 and 13 had raised objection,
however, the said objections were turned down by
the respondent no.4 by an order dated 30.07.2005
and thereby aforesaid entry came to be certified.
He submitted that in fact, aforesaid order was
never challenged by the aggrieved party and thus,
it has attained finality.
7. Learned advocate, Mr. Joshi submitted that
thereafter, the petitioners entered into sale
transaction with the respondent no.11 for the land
in question by way of executing registered sale
deed on 17.08.2005 and paid entire sale
consideration and accordingly, Entry No.15065 came
to be mutated in the revenue record based on
registered sale deed on 23.08.2005 and after
following due procedure of law, aforesaid entry
came to be certified by the revenue authority on
02.12.2005. He submitted that however
subsequently, the Power of Attorney Holder of the
respondent nos.5 to 9 had challenged mutation of
Entry No.10512 and subsequently entries by filing
RTS Appeal No.14/2017 before the Prant Officer,
Mehsana, however, the said Appeal was dismissed by
an order dated 24.09.2007, against which, Revision
Application No.50/2007 was preferred before the
respondent – Collector, who by an order dated
31.05.2008, rejected the said revision application
Page 8 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
and thereby confirmed all entries. He submitted
that being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders,
Revision Application No.13/2008 was preferred
before the respondent – SSRD, however, the
respondent – SSRD remanded the matter back before
the respondent – Collector and on remand, the
respondent – Collector allowed the revision
application preferred by the respondent nos.5 to 9
and thereby cancelled all revenue entries after a
period of more than 20 years including the
mutation of entry in favour of the petitioners
based on registered sale deed. He submitted that
therefore the aforesaid order has been challenged
by the petitioners before the respondent – SSRD by
filing revision application and even male members
of the family, whose entries in their favour have
also been cancelled, have also approached the
respondent – SSRD by filing revision application
and the respondent – SSRD had clubbed both
revision applications together, however without
properly appreciating the facts of the case, the
impugned order came to be passed, whereby both
revision applications have been rejected, against
which, the present petitioners have preferred
present petition challenging cancellation of entry
based on registered sale deed.
8. Learned advocate, Mr. Joshi submitted that as
stated above, the petitioners are the bonafide
purchasers of the land in question, who have
nothing to do with the family arrangement,
Page 9 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
therefore, he may not be made to suffer for the
so-called fraud as stated by the respondent nos.5
to 9. He submitted that at the time of purchase of
the land in question, all the revenue records were
verified and after the execution of the registered
sale deed, notice as required under Section 135D
of the Revenue Code was issued and after receiving
no objection from anyone, the entry in favour of
the petitioners came to be certified, however
subsequently, the Power of Attorney Holder of the
respondent nos.5 to 9 had raised objection by
filing RTS Appeal with malafide intention and as
stated above, it was not entertained by the
revenue authority including the respondent –
Collector, however when the matter was remanded by
the respondent – SSRD, without proper application
of mind including the fact that there is gross
delay of more than 20 years in challenging those
entries, the respondent – Collector allowed the
revision application and the said fact was also
not properly considered by the respondent – SSRD.
He submitted that in fact, partition deed was
never challenged by any family members of
Mohanbhai Sathwara and even the objection raised
against mutation of Entry No.14823 by the
respondent nos.12 and 13 were also turned down by
an order dated 30.07.2005 and the said order was
never challenged by them. He submitted that in
fact, in earlier round of litigation before the
respondent – SSRD when the matter was remanded
Page 10 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
back, the respondent nos.5 to 9 were directed to
obtain succession certificate but they did not
care to obtain it because application moved in
that regard before the competent civil court at
Vijapur was dismissed for default for non-
prosecution and after much delay, restoration
application with delay was moved, which was
pending for adjudication.
9. Learned advocate, Mr. Joshi submitted that in
fact, the sale deed in favour of the petitioners
has also not been challenged by the aggrieved
persons before any competent civil court. He
submitted that in fact, after the purchase of the
land, the petitioners have applied for NA
permission, which has also been considered by the
revenue authority and the said land has already
been converted into non-agricultural use. He
submitted that despite pointing out all above
facts to the authorities concerned, the impugned
orders came to be passed, which clearly go on to
show that the facts of the cases have not been
properly considered.
10. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. Joshi has
relied upon Section 135C of the Revenue Code and
submitted that as and when the registered document
is produced before the revenue authority, the
revenue authorities are under an obligation to
mutate entry without any delay and issue
pertaining to the mutation of entry based on
registered document in the revenue record has no
Page 11 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
longer been in res integra and even the said issue
has been crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
as well as this Hon’ble Court in numerous case
laws and no. It is, therefore, urged that the
present petition may be allowed by quashing and
setting aside the impugned orders and the revenue
authorities may be directed to mutate entry in
favour of the petitioner on the basis of the
registered sale deed.
11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Parikh referred to the
facts of the case and submitted that in fact,
while passing impugned orders, the revenue
authorities have committed grave error and have
not properly considered the facts of the case
despite having sufficient material and evidence
available on record. He submitted that the
petitioners and the private respondents are the
legal heirs of Mohanbhai Sathwara, who was
possessing land bearing Survey Nos.6, 164 and 165
and out of which, land bearing Survey No.6 was
self-acquired property, which was purchased by him
from the original land owner by way of executing
registered sale deed and Entry No.10512 came to be
mutated in the revenue record. He submitted that
during his life time, the said Mohanbhai Sathwara
parted the land possessed by him amongst the
family members by way of executing a partition
deed between the family members on 30.05.1983 and
thereby the shares of each member was equated and
Entry was also effected in the revenue record
Page 12 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
based on said partition deed. He submitted that
after the sad demise of said Mohanbhai Sathwara,
partition of the land of Mohanbhai took place as
per the partition deed and by virtue of it, 1/3
share of the land in question came to the share of
the respondent no.11 herein and entries in respect
of the partition of land amongst family members
came to be mutated including 1/3 share of the
respondent no.11, however, the said entry was
challenged by the respondent nos.12 and 13 before
the Prant Officer by filing RTS Appeal, which was
dismissed but against which, no revision
application was preferred and thus, the respondent
nos.12 and 13 have accepted the said order. He
submitted that in fact, there was no dispute about
the partition of the land amongst the family
members as no civil proceedings were initiated
before any competent civil court by any party. He
submitted that however when the respondent no.11
had sold the land possessed by him to the
petitioners, that too, after the certification of
the entry based on registered sale deed, the Power
of Attorney Holder of the respondent nos.5 to 9
stood up and challenged all above entries, that
too, after delay of more than 20 years without
challenging the validity and legality of the
registered sale deed as well as partition deed
executed by the family memebrs before any
competent civil court and initially, the revenue
authorities had rejected the said challenge,
Page 13 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
however when the matter was remanded back by the
respondent – SSRD, the respondent – Collector
cancelled all those entries, which was confirmed
by the respondent – SSRD.
12. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Parikh submitted that
in fact, earlier when the entry was objected by
filing revision application, which was turned down
as stated above, against which, there was no
challenge before higher forum and even the said
partition deed was never challenged before any
competent civil court. He, therefore, submitted
that therefore after considering all above facts,
after a period of more than 20 years, such
challenge is not permissible, therefore, the
revenue authorities have committed grave error in
passing impugned orders. It is, therefore, urged
that the present petition may be allowed
13. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Trivedi
appearing for the respondents vehemently objected
present petitions and submitted that the
impugned orders passed by the respondent
authorities are just, fair and based on sound
principle of law, therefore, same do not require
any interference at the hands of this Hon’ble
Court. He submitted that at the time of passing
impugned orders, the revenue authorities have
assigned cogent and convincing reasons and have
also taken into consideration the facts of the
case. It is, therefore, urged that considering the
facts of the case, the present petitions may be
Page 14 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
rejected.
14. In view of the rival submissions canvassed by
learned advocates for the parties and having gone
through the material available on record, the moot
question, which would fall for consideration of
this Hon’ble Court, is as to whether the attempt
made by the Power of Attorney Holder of the
respondent nos.5 to 9 to challenge the mutation of
entries in favour of the persons concerned based
on partition deed as also entry mutated in favour
of the petitioners based on registered sale deed
is permissible in eye of law after a period of
more than 20 years, that too, after having failed
in earlier attempt and without challenging the
partition deed as also sale deed.
15. Having considered the facts of the case, it is
found out that one Mohanbhai Sathwara was having
land bearing Survey Nos.6, 164 and 165 situated in
Vijapur, out of which, land bearing Survey No.6
was self-acquired property as the said land was
purchased by him from the land owner, Ishwarbhai
Manchandbhai and during his life time, the said
Mohanbhai Sathwara parted the said lands in favour
of family members, which was reduced into writing
by way of partition deed dated 30.05.1983 and
based on the said deed, Entry No.10512 came to be
mutated in the revenue record on 17.04.1987 and
after the sad demise of said Mohanbhai Sathwara on
08.08.1989, the land was parted amongst the family
members and land in question admeasuring 2A – 3G
Page 15 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
(00-55-89 Sq.Mtrs.) came to the share of the
respondent no.11 herein and Entry No.14823 came to
be mutated in the revenue record on 20.01.2005,
however, the said entry was objected by the
respondent nos.12 and 13, however, the respondent
– Mamlatdar, by an order dated 30.07.2005,
rejected the said objection and admittedly against
the said order, no challenge was made by aggrieved
persons and thus, the said order has attained
finality.
16. Even it appears from the record that there was no
dispute with regard to the partition of the land
amongst the family members as the said partition
deed was never challenged by any parties before
the competent court. Thereafter as the petitioners
were willing to purchase the land in question,
therefore, they entered into sale transaction with
the respondent no.11 herein by way of executing
registered sale deed on payment of entire sale
consideration on 17.08.2005 and, thereafter,
notice as provided under Section 135D of the
Revenue Code came to be issued upon the persons
concerned, however, no objection was received,
therefore, the aforesaid entry was certified on
02.12.2005. Not only that, the said land was old
tenure land and there was no restriction over the
said land, therefore, there was no need for the
petitioners to obtain prior permission from the
competent authority. However thereafter
surprisingly, the Power of Attorney Holder of the
Page 16 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
respondent nos.5 to 9 challenged all aforesaid
entries, based on partition deed as also based on
registered sale deed, by way of filing RTS Appeal
No.14/2007, however, the said Appeal was
dismissed, against which, Revision Application
No.50/2007 was preferred before the respondent –
Collector, however, the said revision application
was also dismissed, against which, Revision
Application was preferred before the respondent –
SSRD, however at that time, the matter was
remanded back before the respondent – Collector,
who allowed the revision application preferred by
the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent
nos.5 to 9 and cancelled all above entries,
therefore, two different revision applications
were preferred by the petitioners of aforesaid two
writ petitions as they are the aggrieved persons,
however, the respondent – SSRD rejected both
revision applications by impugned orders, which
have been assailed by the petitioners before this
Hon’ble Court by way of filing aforesaid
petitions.
17. Recapitulating the relevant factual aspects as
noted above, an undisputed and eye-catching
aspect, which emerged from the facts, are as
under,
(1) the land bearing Survey No.6 is self-acquired
property of Mohanbhai Sathwara;
(2) during his life time, the said Mohanbhai
Sathwara had executed partition deed between
Page 17 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
the family members and pursuance to which, an
Entry No.10512 came to be mutated in the
revenue record on 17.04.1987 and
subsequently, the said entry was also
certified by the revenue authority;
(3) there is no challenge to the said partition
deed by any member of the family;
(4) after the sad demise of Mohanbhai Sathwara,
the lands owned by him were partied amongst
the family members as per the terms of the
partition deed and an Entry No.14808 came to
be mutated in the revenue record on
11.01.2005 and Entry No.14808 came to be
mutated;
(5) as per the said partition deed, land in
question admeasuring 2A – 3G (00-55-89
Sq.Mtrs.) came to the share of the respondent
no.11 and Entry No.14823 came to be mutated
in the revenue record on 20.01.2005
reflecting the partition of the land bearing
Survey No.6 amongst the respondent no.11 and
other sons;
(6) against the mutation of said entry,
objections were raised by the respondent
nos.12 and 13, however by an order dated
30.07.2005, the said objections were
rejected, against which, there was no
challenge and thus, the said order has
attained finality;
(7) thereafter, the petitioners have entered into
Page 18 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
sale transaction with the respondent no.5 by
way of executing registered sale deed on
17.08.2005 on payment of entire sale
consideration and pursuance to which, an
Entry No.15065 came to be mutated in the
revenue record on 23.08.2005 and, thereafter
after following due procedure of law
including by issuing notice under Section
135D of the Revenue Code, the said entry came
to be certified on 02.12.2005 as no
objections were received from any one;
(8) even no one has challenged the registered
sale deed executed by the respondent no.11 in
favour of the petitioners;
(9) even the permission sought for by the
petitioners for conversion of land from
agricultural use to non-agricultural use has
been granted, which has also not been
challenged by any of the parties;
(10) despite service of notice, neither the Power
of Attorney Holder of the respondent nos.5 to
9 nor the respondent nos.5 to 9 have remained
present to contest the petitions and/or
engaged counsel to appear on their behalf;
18. Thus from the aforesaid aspects, it is evident
that the challenge to the mutation of entries is
made after long delay of more than 20 years, that
too, without any justifiable reasons. However law
on this aspect has been crystallized by this
Hon’ble Court while dealing with the matter in
Page 19 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2013) 2 GLR
1788, wherein the Division Bench of this Hon’ble
Court has specifically observed that the settled
things cannot be unsettled after long delay.
Relevant observations made by the Division Bench
of this Hon’ble Court read as under,
"It must be fairly said that if the statue
does not prescribe time limit for exercise of
revisional powers, it does not mean that such
powers can be exercised at any point of time
even if there is a breach of Section 43 of
the Act, which is a provision which relates
to a new tenure land, rather it should be
exercised within a reasonable period of time.
It is so because the law does not expect a
settled thing to be unsettled after a long
lapse of time. It is clear from various
judgments of the Supreme Court that where a
statutory provision for exercise of any suo
motu powers of revision does not prescribe
any limitation, the powers must be exercised
within a reasonable period of time even in
the case of transaction which would be termed
as void transaction."
[emphasis supplied]
19. Further, the entry was mutated in the revenue
record in favour of the petitioners of Special
Civil Application No.9064/2015 on the basis of an
entirely legal and valid sale deed being executed
upon payment entire sale consideration. Thus,
ordering the land of an individual being purchased
by executing the registered sale deed, to be
vested to the Government by the concerned revenue
authority would ultimately, amount to annulment of
the sale deed. It is a settled law that the
revenue authorities, cannot unilaterally annul
Page 20 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
sale deeds even if fraud is alleged; such matters
must go to a civil court. Over and above, it is
admitted position of fact that when there is a
registered sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioners and the same is not challenged in any
civil proceedings, much less set aside, the
revenue authority is bound by the same. It is
trite principle that an entry in the revenue
record has to follow to be mutated when the
transaction is by a registered document.
Therefore, a useful reference can be made to the
decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of
Javerbhai Savjibhai Patel Vs. Kanchanben Nathubhai
Patel & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) G.L.H. 657,
wherein has laid down such principle and further
ruled in Nathubhai Meraman Darji Vs. Special
Secretary (Appeals), reported in 1996 (3) GCD 691,
wherein it has been held and observed that when
the transaction is represented by a registered
document, the revenue authority is required to
take suo motu cognizance thereof for the purpose
of mutation in the revenue record and such
transaction cannot be disputed by the revenue
authority unless the competent civil court annuls
the same.
20. It is settled proposition of law that, when a
person has a registered document executed in his
favour acquiring certain equitable rights, he has
been exempted from reporting the acquisition of
right to the revenue authority. In this regard, it
Page 21 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
would be apt to refer to the decision of this
Hon’ble Court in case of Balvantrai Ambaram Patel
Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-
HC 232555, wherein in Paragraphs Nos.5.3 to 6.1,
certain observations have been made, which read
thus:-
“5.3 As per Section 135-C of the Code extracted
above, any person who acquires right on any
land or is able to assert right of
occupancy, ownership, mortgage, etc., it is
provided that he shall make report to the
designated officer. Second Proviso to the
provision is material for the purpose of the
case on hand, which says that any person
acquiring a right by virtue of a registered
document is exempted from the obligation to
make report to the designated officer. The
said Proviso in other way recognizes the
legal effect of a registered document by
virtue of which a person may have purchased
the land. He will be then able to assert his
right as owner by virtue of the registered
sale deed itself from which, for him all
incidences of ownership would flow.
Therefore once there is a registered
document of sale of land, the purchaser
would be entitled to get his name mutated in
the revenue records on that basis.
5.4 Section 135-D contemplates verification of
the report made to him under Section 135-C.
Various provisions of Section 135- D
envisage the procedure for verification and
making of necessary entries in the register
of mutations as well as certification
thereof. Sub-section (2) provides for
intimation to all persons appearing on the
record of rights and who are interested in
the mutation. The designated officer is
required to intimate them and receive
objections, if any, from such person. Sub-
section (4) provides for orders disposing of
the Appeals. Sub-section (5) provides that
where no objection is raised within a
Page 22 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
prescribed period of 30 days, the mutation
entry shall be certified.
5.5 A conjoint effect of aforesaid provisions is
that in cases of a claim made for mutation
by a person in capacity of owner on the
basis of registered sale deed, the
designated officer is bound to enter his
name as having purchased the land by lawful
mode of transfer. As already noticed, a
person purchasing the land by registered
sale deed is not supposed to make a report
to the designated officer for the purpose of
entries in the revenue records, as is
contemplated in relation to other cases. The
working of the provisions of Sections 135-C
and 135-D obtained a position that a
mutation entry has to be made by the
designated officer on the basis of the
registered document, in the instant case, a
document of sale. After making mutation
entry in favour of such person recognizing
his claim on the basis of registered
document, the designated officer thereafter
may follow the procedure under Section 135-
D, implying that the competent officer may
subsequently deal with the objections
received and dispose of the same in
accordance with the provisions of sub-
sections of Section 135-D.
6. Therefore in all cases of claims for
mutation based on a registered document, the
competent officer has to be entered the name
of the claimantowner-right holder. The
authority cannot insist for observing the
requirements of Section 135-D apriori and on
that basis declined to enter the name in the
revenue records. The designated officer in
charge of the said function has no
jurisdiction to disregard the legal effect
of the registered document, and he cannot be
permitted to do so even indirectly. Once the
petitioner purchased the land in question by
virtue of registered sale deed, he is
entitled to have his name mutated in the
revenue records. The reasons given in the
Page 23 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
impugned order dated 04.02.2014 of the
Mamlatdar for not mutating the entry and
insisting for consent letters, etc., have no
sanction of law and they do not hold good in
light of the statutory provisions noted
above.
6.1 Accordingly this petition is allowed. The
order dated 04.02.2014 of respondent No.3-
Mamlatdar (copy produced at Annexure-A with
the petition) is hereby set aside. It is
directed that respondent No.3 shall follow
the mandate of Section 135-C with regard to
request of the petitioner. It is
simultaneously observed that the said
authority shall be at liberty to undergo and
comply with the provisions of Section 135-D
in the event necessary.”
21. Similarly, in decision of this Hon’ble Court in
case of Narendrabhai Shantilal Parikh Vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247646, it
has been observed as under;
“10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that
the law with regard to mutation of entry of a
registered sale deed as well as while
mutation of the entry, the jurisdiction of
the revenue authorities has already been
settled by this Hon’ble Court in catena of
decisions. It would be apt to take note of
the decision of this Court in case of
Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel vs. State of
Gujarat & Others, reported in 2005 (2) GLR
1370. The relevant observations of the said
decisions read, thus;
“9. It is the consistent view taken by this
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
Page 24 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
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, 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 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
Page 25 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
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 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 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
Page 26 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
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.
11. So far as submissions and arguments on behalf
of the petitioner that by virtue of the
aforesaid transaction that there would be a
breach of provisions of the Bombay Prevention
of Fragmentation Act as the land would be
fragmented and therefore also the respondent
could not have purchased the land in question
and the said transaction was in breach of
provisions of the Act and therefore also the
entry in favour of the respondent could not
have been made on the basis of the said sale.
This aspect is already considered by this
Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment
Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Special
Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State,
reported in 1991(1) GLR 113, and also in the
case of Siddharth B. Shah & Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in 1999(3) GLR Page 2527.
This Court in the aforesaid two judgments has
considered the scope and ambit of Rule 108 of
the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the
jurisdiction of the revenue authorities while
considering the RTS proceedings and has held
as under;
"So far as the proceedings under Section
108 of the Rules popularly known as RTS
proceedings are concerned it is well
settled that the entries made in the
revenue records 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 the competent authorities under
special enactments. Independently the
revenue authorities, as mentioned in 108
Page 27 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
of the Rules, cannot pass orders of
cancelling the entries on an assumption
that the transactions recorded in the
entry are against the provisions of a
particular enactment. Whether the
transaction is valid or not has to be
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." Considering the judgment of
this Court in aforesaid two cases, there
is no substance in the argument and
submission on behalf of the petitioner
to the effect that while considering the
RTS proceedings and making necessary
entry in favour of the respondents, the
revenue authority was also required to
consider that by aforesaid transaction
there will be breach of provisions of
Fragmentation Act or not and the same is
required to be rejected.” transactions
recorded in the entry are against the
provisions of a particular enactment.
Whether the transaction is valid or not
has to be 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."
Considering the judgment of this Court
in aforesaid two cases, there is no substance
in the argument and submission on behalf of
the petitioner to the effect that while
considering the RTS proceedings and making
necessary entry in favour of the respondents,
the revenue authority was also required to
consider that by aforesaid transaction there
will be breach of provisions of Fragmentation
Act or not and the same is required to be
rejected.”
Page 28 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
11. 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 refusing
to mutate the registered sale deed entry on
the ground that the petitioner has not
produced the details of land within the
Godhara Taluka. The entire crux for
cancellation of the mutation of entry is that
the petitioner had not produced the
agricultural land certificate. In my
considered opinion, under the provision of
Section 135-C of the Code, it is the duty of
the revenue authorities to give effect of
registered sale deed in the revenue records
at the first instance. Whether the petitioner
is an agriculturist or not, can be the
subject matter in a different and independent
proceedings but, certainly, cannot be
considered in the revenue proceedings. In the
instant case, however, if the order of the
Deputy Collector, Godhara dated 16.1.2016 is
perused, it is abundantly made clear therein
that the petitioner has already produced the
agricultural certificate of the Mamlatdar,
Halol dated 26.2.2012. Under the
circumstances, rejection of mutation entry on
that ground, even otherwise, could not have
been sustained.
12. Considering the further fact that now, the
suit filed by respondent No.6 seeking
cancellation of the sale deed has already
been culminated into dismissal and that no
further appeal has been filed, the order of
the competent civil court is said to have
attained its finality and thereby also, on
that additional ground, the mutation of entry
pursuant to the registered sale deed has to
be restored. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, the impugned order passed
by the revenue authorities is not tenable
under the law and thereby, requires to be
quashed and set aside.”
Page 29 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
22. It is required to be noted that it is settled
proposition of law that it is the competent civil
court, who is competent to decide the title over
the land and not by the revenue authority in
exercise of power under the provision of the
Revenue Code. The said aspect is already
considered by this Court in the case of Evergreen
Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Special
Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State,
reported in 1991(1) GLR 113, and also in the case
of Siddharth B. Shah & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 1999 (3) GLR 2527. This Court in the
aforesaid two judgments has considered the scope
and ambit of Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue
Rules and the jurisdiction of the revenue
authorities while considering the RTS proceedings
and has held as under;
"So far as the proceedings under Sec. 108 of
the Rules popularly known as RTS proceedings
are concerned it is well settled that the
entries made in the revenue records 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 the competent authorities
under special enactments. Independently the
revenue authorities, as mentioned in 108 of
the Rules, cannot pass orders of cancelling
the entries on an assumption that the
transactions recorded in the entry are
against the provisions of a particular
enactment. Whether the transaction is valid
or not has to be 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."
Page 30 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
23. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
there is no bar of challenging the mutation of
entry after long period of time unless there are
compelling reasons or violations of principles of
natural justice. However if the facts of the
present case are examined, in that event, it is
admitted position of fact that there is no fraud
committed by the petitioners of both the
petitioners with the respondent nos.5 to 9 in view
of the fact that when the mutation of entry was
effected in favour of the respondent no.11 with
regard to the partition of the land in question
with regard to their share, objections were raised
but same were not considered and the said order
attained finality. Over and above, the partition
was made amongst the family members, that too, in
the life time of the parents of the private
respondents and the said fact were well within the
knowledge of the respondent nos.5 to 9 and at that
point of time, neither objection was raised nor
the said partition deed was challenged before the
competent civil court. Therefore on the strength
of the above stated factual aspect of the matter,
it is also clear that there was no fraud
committed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as
this Hon’ble Court in number of decisions have
held that delays of decades in challenging
unchallenged mutation entries can bar the
challenge, especially when no satisfactory
explanation is provided. The law recognizes that
Page 31 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026

C/SCA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/07/2026
long-standing revenue entries, if unchallenged,
tend to attain finality. Therefore, it is crucial
to explain the delay or risk dismissal. Success in
such challenges often hinges on evidence of error
and recent awareness. However here in the present
case on hand, it is not the case that those
entries were mutated by playing fraud with them
and/or by keeping them in dark, therefore, there
was no reason for them to challenge such entries
after much delay without there being any
justifiable reasons. Therefore considering the
above facts of the case, the present petitions
deserve to be allowed.
24. In the result, both petitions are allowed. The
impugned order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the
respondent – SSRD in Revision Application
No.MVV/HKP/MSN/8/2010 and in Revision Application
No.MVV/HKP/MSN/13/2010 as also the order dated
29.12.2009 passed by the respondent – Collector,
Mehsana are hereby quashed and set aside and as a
corollary effect, Entry Nos.10512, 14808, 14823
and 15065 shall stand restored in the revenue
record. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
Page 32 of 32
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 IST 2026