RANIBEN HATHIYABHAI RAJANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1513 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1513 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
RANIBEN HATHIYABHAI RAJANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DEVANSHIBA RANA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 21/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioner and Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP
appearing for the respondent – State authorities.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has
invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
impugned orders; (a) dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned
Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of
Gujarat, Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No.MVV-HKP-JNR-
16/2021; (b) dated 18.10.2021 passed by the District Collector,
Jamnagar, in Revision Application No.RTS Revision-JMN
10/2020 and (c) dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Deputy
Collector & Prant Officer, Jamanagar, whereby, the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 by the impugned orders, confirmed the order
passed by the respondent No.4 rejecting the mutation entry
No.2548, dated 29.06.2019 of registered sale deed dated
29.06.2019 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jamnagar-
4(Kheti) in Book No.1 at Sr. No.581, in relation to the subject
land bearing agriculture land of Survey No.392 paiki 5,
admeasuring 0-79-93 H-Are-Sq.Mtrs. Tika 2, situated in the city
of Jamnagar (for short ‘the subject land’).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner herein is
an agriculturist and belonging to the Maldhari-Charan
Community, a certificate of which is duly issued in favour of
the petitioner’s husband on 08.05.1995 by the competent
authority duly annexed at Annexure – E to the petition. By the
registered sale deed dated 29.06.2019 registered before the
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
office of Sub-Registrar, Jamnagar at Jamnagar -4(Kheti) in the
Book No.1, Sr. No.581, the petitioner purchased the subject
land from one Jamnadas Devjibhai & Others. Copy of the said
sale deed is duly produced at Annexure – F to the petition. One
pencil entry No.2548, dated 29.06.2019, was recorded in
relation to the said sale deed. The petitioner herein pointed out
to the competent authorities that after the death of the
petitioner’s husband, vide succession entry No.2687, 710 and
1695, all dated 28.06.2018, names of the petitioner and other
heirs came to be mutated in the revenue record. Copies of the
said succession entries are duly produced at Annexure – H
colly. to the petition.
3.1 The petitioner and others also transferred the
consolidated new S/B No.321 and within stipulated time from
the date of such transfer, purchased the subject agricultural
land. Copy of the sale entry No.2714, dated 27.03.2019 is duly
produced at Annexure – I (page 118) to the petition. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner purchased the subject agricultural
land within stipulated time after transferring the new S/B.
No.321 and is having coparcenary agricultural land at
Mouje/Village : Ravalsar & Dheba of Jamnagar District. On
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
24.09.2019, the Mamlatdar, Jamanagar City, rejected the
mutation entry No.2548, which is duly produced at Annexure –
J to the petition.
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the rejection of the
mutation entry, the petitioner preferred RTS Appeal before
Deputy Collector & Prant Officer, Jamanagar City, being HKP
Appeal No.05/2019 as provided under Rule 108(5) of the
Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. It was the case of the
petitioner before the said authority that the petitioner was
possessing the agricultural lands situated at Mouje/Village :
Ravalsar & Dheba of Jamnagar District and hence, after
verifying the said details, the Mamlatdar (Rural) issued
Certificate No.JMN/VASHI/1666/Reg. No.110/2019, dated
29.07.2019, certifying the status of the petitioner as an
agriculturist on the date on which, the agricultural land was
purchased by the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the
agricultural lands of new S/B No.321 has been purchased by
the petitioner’s husband under public auction conducted by
the Special Recovery Officer appointed by the Bank and
accordingly, mutation entry No.732, dated 15.05.1980, was
posted in the Village Form No.6, which was duly certified. The
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
petitioner pointed out that the agricultural lands were
consolidated and new S/B No.321, admeasuring 45664 sq.
mtrs. was given, which was transferred vide registered sale
deed dated 27.03.2019 and within stipulated time, the
petitioner purchased the subject land.
3.3 Even otherwise, the petitioner is possessing said
agricultural lands and is also a Maldhari, which is included
within the term of agriculturist under Section 54 of the
Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural
Lands Ordinance, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner also
relied on the judgment rendered in Special Civil Application
No.10715 of 1995, dated 22.03.2007, submitting that the
person who purchased the agricultural land under the public
auction has acquired the status of an agriculturist. Moreover,
the mutation entry No.732, dated 15.05.1980, has not been
disturbed till date. It was also pointed out that the petitioner’s
husband is belonging to Maldhari Charan Community and
therefore, she is also covered within the meaning of
agriculturist under Section 54 of the Act. It was pointed out
that on account of breach of condition, the said lands
purchased by the petitioner’s husband under auction, has been
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
confiscated by the State Government however, the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal (GRT) by order dated 28.10.1997 passed in
Revision Application No.TEN/AR/16/95, quashed and set aside
the said order of confiscation and thus, mutation entry
No.1573, dated 20.12.1997 was recorded in the Village Form
No.6, which was duly certified. Thereafter, under the order of
competent authority, in view of the policy of the State
Government, the said agricultural lands owned by the
petitioner’s husband, came to be converted into old tenure
land. The mutation entry No.1605, dated 10.12.1995 to the
said effect has been posted in the Village Form No.6.
3.4 On account of death of petitioner’s husband, Hathiya
Aebha, the names of the heirs and legal heirs were posted vide
succession entry No.2687, dated 28.06.2018, which was duly
certified by the Circle Officer, Jamnagar. It was pointed out that
under the scheme of consolidation, all the survey numbers
were consolidated and the same was transferred and within
stipulated time, the agricultural land was purchased. The
petitioner produced Res. No.RD-6-12-15, dated 05.10.1953,
and instruction issued by the Maldhari Settlement Works,
Rajkot, dated 01.02.1957, to contend that the term
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
agriculturist also includes Maldhari thus, the rejection of the
mutation entry is uncalled for. The petitioner also raised the
issue of gross-utilization of power by the revenue authorities
and contended that the revenue authorities are bound to
record the mutation entry in view of the registered sale deed
and are not empowered to go into breach of another
enactment while recording the mutation entry. It is submitted
that the Deputy Collector & Prant Officer, Jamnagar City,
respondent No.3 herein, without appreciating the contentions
raised by the petitioner, rejected the RTS appeal by order
dated 18.02.2020.
3.5 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.02.2020, the
petitioner herein approached the respondent No.2 – Collector,
Jamnagar, under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue
Rules, 1972 by preferring RTS Revision – JMN 10/2020. Pending
the said Revision Application, though the respondent No.2
granted stay by order dated 07.03.2020, the said Revision
Application finally came to be rejected by order dated
18.10.2021, confirming the order passed by the Deputy
Collector & Prant Officer. The aforesaid order was challenged
by way of Revision Application No.MVV-HKP-JNR-16/2021
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
before the learned SSRD, wherein, by the impugned order
dated 14.12.2022, the petitioner’s revision application came to
be rejected, which has given rise to the filing of the present
petition for the following reliefs:
“A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari, or
any other writ or order or directions and be further pleased to quash and
set aside the impugned orders, passed by the Resp. nos.1-3 produced at
Annex. A to C respectively to this petition and be further pleased to direct
the respondent – authorities to post and certify revenue entry in favour of
petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed dtd. 29.06.2019 (Annexure-
F) in relation to the agricultural land bearing revenue S.No. 392 paiky 5
admeasuring 0-79-93 H-Are Sq. Mtrs. Tika 2 situated in the City of
Jamnagar; AND
B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay impugned orders
passed by the Resp. nos.1-3 produced at Annex. A to C respectively and be
further pleased to direct the respondent – authorities to figure the name of
the petitioner in the revenue records of the subjected land, pending
hearing and final disposal of this petition; AND
C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in
terms of Para (B) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition; AND
D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further
orders may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.”
4. Notice came to be issued on 06.02.2023. Pending the
present petition, following order came to be passed on
27.01.2026:
“Heard Mr. N. V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner. It is his categorical submission that the petitioner is an
agriculturist and belonging to the Maldhari community, for which there is
indubitable proof which has been appended to this petition by way of
Annexure-E at page no. 47 and Annexure-G at page no. 102 respectively.
Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate further relies upon the decision of this Court
in case of Evergreen Apartment Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.
V/s. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department reported in
1991 (1) GLH 155, in support of his contention that it is beyond the
purview of the revenue authorities to question title at the time of
registration of the entry.
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that
as the papers have been recently allocated to him on account of the order
of the Registrar constituting this Bench at 02:30 P.M., he is unable to
answer this question at such short notice. Therefore, at his request, the
matter is adjourned to 06.02.2026 on top of the Board, subject to the
convenience of the Hon’ble Regular Bench.”
5. Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner relies on the facts, as referred to hereinabove, and
submitted that the impugned orders are required to be
interfered with mainly, on the ground that the petitioner herein
has purchased the subject land by way of registered sale deed
dated 29.06.2019 in view thereof, the revenue authorities as
provided under Section 135(C) of the Code, are required to
post the mutation entries on the basis of the registered
documents. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case of
Radheshyam Developers Vs. Official Liquidator of Shree
Vallabh Glass Works Limited, reported in 2011 JX (Guj.)
662.
5.1 Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate further submits that the
petitioner herein is possessing other coparcenary agricultural
lands also, which can be seen from the Certificate
No.JMN/VASHI/1666/Reg. No.110/2019, dated 29.07.2019,
issued by the Mamlatdar, Jamnagar (Rural) backed by revenue
records of agricultural lands bearing B/S Nos.100, 174, 91 of
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
Account No.257, situated at Mouje/Village : Ravalsar, Tal. &
Dist. Jamnagar, and B/S No.75 of Mouje/Village : Dheba, Tal. &
Dist. : Jamnagar. It is submitted that the impugned orders are
contrary to the Government Resolution dated 01.02.1957
issued by the Deputy Collector, Maldhari Settlement Works,
Rajkot r/w. provisions of Section 54 of the Saurashtra
Gharkhed, Tenancy, Settlement and Agricultural Lands
Ordinance, 1949 and in view thereof also, are required to be
quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the petitioner’s
husband was Maldhari and derives as his legal heirs the status
of Maldhari wherein, as provided under Section 54 of the Act,
the term agriculturist would include Maldhari and in view
thereof, the bar to transfer the land to a non-agriculturist is not
applicable to the petitioner.
5.2 Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in case of
Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
Vs. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department,
Gujarat State, reported in 1991 (1) GLH 155 . Placing
reliance on the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that
rejection of the mutation entry on the basis of the registered
sale deed based on the non-production of documents for
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
showing the status of the petitioner as an agriculturist,
amounts to gross-utilization of powers and in view thereof also,
the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside
and the revenue authorities be directed to mutate the entry of
the registered sale deed dated 29.06.2019 in the revenue
record.
6. Ms. Devanshiba Rana, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent – State authorities submits that no interference is
called for in the impugned orders passed by the respondent
authorities. Reliance is placed on the order dated 18.02.2020
passed by the Deputy Collector & Prant Officer, duly produced
on record at Annexur – C (page 32) to the petition, wherein,
the status of the petitioner’s deceased husband - Hathiyabhai
Aebhabhai Rajani, as an agriculturist was questioned and in
view thereof, the entry No.2548 of the registered sale deed,
dated 29.06.2019, is rejected.
7. Mr. N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner, in rejoinder, reiterates the submissions made earlier
and relies on the documents produced on record to show that
the petitioner herein is holding agricultural land. Reliance is
placed on the documents; (a) Annexure – G (page 102) to the
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
petition wherein, on 29.07.2019, the petitioner is issued a
certificate of agriculturist; (b) Village Form No.7 record duly
produced at page 103 to the petition wherein, the land is used
for agriculture purpose and the names of occupants includes
the name of the petitioner herein; (c) Village Form No.12 duly
produced at page 104 to the petition, which includes the name
of the petitioner and the land-in-question is used for
agricultural purpose. Reliance is also placed on page 106 to
the petition wherein, by way of Entry No.1695, dated
28.06.2018, the heirship entry is certified on 07.08.2018 upon
issuance of notice under Section 135(D) of the Code.
7.1 Reliance is also placed on 7/12 record with respect to
Survey Nos.91, 100 and 174 for which, Entry No.710, dated
28.06.2018 is mutated and certified on 07.08.2018. Placing
reliance on the aforesaid revenue records, it is submitted that
the petitioner herein is using the land for agriculture purpose
and therefore, the sale as such is in accordance with the
provisions of law.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, it emerges from the record that the
petitioner herein purchased the land bearing Survey No.392
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
paiki 5, admeasuring 0-79-93 H-Are-Sq. Mtrs. by way of
registered sale deed dated 29.06.2019 registered before the
Office of Sub-Registrar, Jamnagar, at Jamnagar – 4(Kheti) in the
Book No.1, Sr. No.581, from one Jamnadas Devjibhai & Others.
Online pencil entry No.2548, dated 29.06.2019 i.e. even date,
was recorded in relation to the registered sale deed. The
petitioner herein at the time of certification the pencil entry,
produced Certificate issued in favour of her late husband on
08.05.1995 by the competent authority.
8.1 The certification of the entry of the registered sale deed
being Entry No.2548, came to be rejected by the Mamlatdar,
Jamnagar, by order dated 24.09.2019, on the ground that the
petitioner failed to produce on record proof that the
petitioner’s husband was an agriculturist and in view thereof,
the certification of the entry came to be rejected. The said
order was subject matter of challenge before the Collector and
the learned SSRD wherein, concurrently, the petitioner’s
applications came to be rejected, confirming the order passed
by the Mamlatdar, dated 24.09.2019.
9. Upon perusal of the documents on record, in the opinion
of this Court, the respondent authorities while exercising
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
powers under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, are
required to mutate the entry of a registered sale deed as
provided under Section 135(C) of the Code. Section 135(C) of
the Code provides that any person acquiring a right by virtue
of a registered document shall be exempted from the
obligation to report to the designated officer. The revenue
authorities are required to post the mutation entries on the
basis of the registered documents.
10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 135(C) of
the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which reads thus:
“135C. Acquisition of rights to be reported:- Any person
acquiring the right on any land by succession, survivorship, inheritance,
partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any right as holder,
occupant, owner, mortgagee, assignee of the rent thereof, shall make a
report of such acquisition of such right, either manually or electronically, to
the designated officer within the period of three months from the date of
such acquisition, and the said designated officer shall at once, give a
written acknowledgment of the receipt of such report to the person making
it :
Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor, or otherwise
disqualified, his guardian or other person, having charge of his property,
shall make the report to the designated officer :
Provided further that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered
document shall be exempted from obligation to report to the designated
officer.
Explanation I.- The rights mentioned above include a mortgage without
possession, but do not include an easement or a charge not amounting to
a mortgage of the kind specified in section 100 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
Explanation II.- A person in whose favour a mortgage is discharged or
extinguished, or lease determines, acquires a right within the meaning of
this section."
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
11. It is also apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case of
Radheshyam Developers Vs. Official Liquidator of Shree
Vallabh Glass Works Limited, reported in 2011 JX (Guj.)
662. Relevant paragraph 12 of the said decision reads thus:
“12. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
having considered their rival submissions in light of the pleadings made in
the application as well as affidavit-in-reply and further affidavit, the court
is of the view that issue raised in the present application is squarely
covered by the decision of this Court. Once the sale deed has been
executed in favour of the applicant, by virtue of the provisions contained in
Section 135C of the Bombay Land Revenue Code it is obligatory on the
part of the revenue authorities to effect necessary entries in the revenue
record mutating the name of the applicant. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the revenue authorities to follow procedure prescribed in
Section 13SD of the Code. The Court has in no uncertain taken the view
that if there is any dispute with regard to mutation entry the disputing
party should approach competent Civil Court for avoiding such transaction
as provided in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Revenue
Authority cannot dispute the validity of the transaction in RTS proceedings.
When the position in law is clear and well settled, the dispute raised by the
Respondent No. 3 in affidavit-in-reply cannot be adjudicated. The
objections raised by Shri Manibhai Jivabhai Gohel were not entertained by
this Court in Company Application No. 158 of 2009 and OJ Appeal filed
there against was also dismissed. So far as objections raised by Narsinghai
Ashabhai is concerned, the applicant filed Company Application No. 278 of
2010 challenging proceedings of Tenancy Case No. 15 of 2010 and 16 of
2010 as weli as Tenancy Case No. 47 of 2009. Similar prayer was made
qua Case No. 1 of 2009 which came be dismissed be Dy. Collector, Anand.
Company Application No. 278 of 2010 came to be allowed on 26.4.2010.
Even the objection raised by Mercantile Cooperative Bank is concerned,
the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the entry recorded will
have evidentiary value as unsecured creditors of the Company and it
would not be termed as creation or maintenance of any charge over the
property of the company in liquidation.”
11.1 It is further apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case
of Evergreen Apartment Co.Op. Housing Society Vs.
Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State,
reported in 1991 (1) GLH 155 : 1991 (1) GLR 113, wherein,
paragraph 12 of the said decision reads thus:
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
“12. There is much substance in the second submission of Mr. Hawa
also. Ordinarily when a transfer of property takes place by a registered
account an entry is effected in the revenue record and it is certified by the
mamlatdar after making necessary inquiries. If there is any dispute
regarding mutation, the dispute has to be entered in the register of the
disputed cases and then such disputes are to be disposed of by the
Mamlatdar. Under subrule (5) of Rule 108 of the Rules, the aggrieved party
can prefer an appeal within 60 days from the date of the service of the
order. The State Government has power to call for and examine the record
of any enquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate revenue officer and
to review the same under sub-rule (6) of the rules. It is to be noted in the
present case that no appeal had been presented within 60 days from the
date of Mamlatdar's order certifying the initial entry. the Assistant
Collector, Surat took the said entry in suo motu revision, even though he
had no such power under the provisions of Rule 108. It, therefore, appears
that the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department remanded the
proceeding to the Collector for treating the same as an appeal. This was
done after a period of 4 years after certification of the entry. It was only
the State Government which had the power to call for a record of inquiry or
proceeding under sub- rule (6) of Rule 108. Even the State Government
was empowered to satisfy itself "as to the regularity of such proceedings
and as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed in such
proceedings". So the entire inquiry and revisional power has to proceed
under the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and not under any enactments like
the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act or Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation
of Holdings Act. It is quite possible that an officer of the Revenue
Department may be occupying different capacities under different
enactments. That, however, would not empower him to exercise any
powers under one enactment while proceeding under another enactment.
So far as the proceedings under Rule 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 competent authorities under special enactments.
Independently the Revenue Authorities, as mentioned in Rule 108 of the
Rules, cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that
the transaction recorded in the entry are against the provisions of a
particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be
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. Thus on this second ground also the orders of the Collector
and the Additional Chief Secretary appear to be beyond their jurisdiction.
The Additional Chief Secretary has held that the sale by auction was not
consistent with the provisions of Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act. Section 27 relates to prohibition of transfer of any urban
land with a building thereon. Apart from the legal position that Section 27
has been struck down as ultra vires, it is quite obvious that no such
question of transferring urban land with a building thereon has ever arisen
in the present case. Thus, the order of the Revisional authority has
proceeded on a misconception of relevant legal provisions also.”
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
12. In view of the aforesaid, the revenue entry of a registered
sale deed dated 29.06.2019 is required to be mutated in the
revenue record. In the opinion of this Court, while declining to
mutate the entry of a registered sale deed, the respondent
authority transgress its jurisdiction by questioning the status of
the petitioner's husband that whether he was agriculturist or
not. Further, in the opinion of this Court, though there is gross-
utilization of powers, it is also not in dispute that the
petitioner’s husband was issued a certificate that the
petitioner’s husband belong to Maldhari Charan Community by
certificate dated 08.05.1995. The heirship entries are also
produced on record to show that the petitioner herein is also
possessing agricultural lands, which is duly demonstrated from
pages 103 to 117 to the petition.
13. In view of the aforesaid, without delving further, this
Court is considering the case of the petitioner wherein, the
petitioner’s mutation entry of the registered sale deed is
declined in view thereof, the aforesaid discussion suffices the
grievance raised in the present petition wherein, the registered
sale deed dated 29.06.2019 is in-tact. In view thereof, the
respondent authorities are required to certify the revenue
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
entry in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The ratio
laid down in case of Evergreen Apartment Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Special Secretary (Appeals),
Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991 (1)
GLH 155 , as referred to in the interim order dated 27.01.2026,
also clinches the issue wherein, the respondent authorities
have gross-utilize the powers.
13.1 Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner holds an
agricultural land, as emerges from the documents duly placed
on record; (a) Annexure – G (page 102) to the petition wherein,
on 29.07.2019, the petitioner is issued a certificate of
agriculturist; (b) Village Form No.7 record duly produced at
page 103 to the petition wherein, the land is used for
agriculture purpose and the names of occupants includes the
name of the petitioner herein; (c) Village Form No.12 duly
produced at page 104 to the petition, which includes the name
of the petitioner and the land-in-question is used for
agricultural purpose.
14. For the reasons, as referred to hereinabove, the
impugned orders; (a) dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned
Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/SCA/1513/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
Gujarat, Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No.MVV-HKP-JNR-
16/2021; (b) dated 18.10.2021 passed by the District Collector,
Jamnagar, in Revision Application No.RTS Revision-JMN
10/2020 and (c) dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Deputy
Collector & Prant Officer, Jamanagar, are quashed and set
aside, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The respondent No.4 – Mamlatdar is
directed to mutate the entry of a registered sale deed dated
29.06.2019 in relation to agricultural land bearing revenue
S.No.392 paiki 5, admeasuring 0-79-93 H-Are-Sq. Mtrs. Tika –
2, situated in the City of Jamanagar, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
15. The present petition is allowed, accordingly. Rule is made
absolute.
Since the main petition is disposed of, the connected Civil
Application No.1 of 2025 would not survive and stands
disposed of, accordingly.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026