DEVDAS DOSABHAI RAVIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1167 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVDAS DOSABHAI RAVIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SIRAJ R GORI(2298) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7,3.8
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 14/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner herein has prayed for the
following reliefs:
“(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition,
(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing and setting aside the impugned orders passed by
the Respondent authorities on 30.07.2013 & 19.08.2016 passed by
the Respondent No. 2 & 1 respectively;
(C) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, staying the operation, implementation & execution of the
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
impugned orders passed by the Respondent authorities on
30.07.2013 & 19.08.2016;
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition,
be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo qua the
land in question;
(E) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be
deemed fit and proper.”
2) The case of the petitioner can be summarized, in a nutshell,
as under:
2.1) It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of
independence of India, survey settlement proceedings of
agricultural lands of each holder were carried out by the
Government and at that relevant point of time, the name of one
Mandan Samat had been mutated in the revenue record with
regard to Survey No. 86 situated at Village Zarapara, Taluka
Mundra, District Kutch, as an agriculturist personally cultivating
the land. After the sad demise of the said Mandan Samat, the
names of his legal heirs came to be brought on record. It is the
case of the petitioner that thereafter, due to some mistake, an
entry bearing Entry No. 298 came to be mutated in the revenue
record, wherein the name of a Temple Trust was shown as the
owner of the property and the said Mandan Samat was shown as
a tenant of the said property. As soon as those facts came to the
notice of the said person, he immediately preferred an
application on 01.12.1967 seeking correction of the said mistake
in the revenue record. After verifying and scrutinizing all the
documents, recording statements, and preparing panchkyas of
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
the villagers, the authority concerned came to the conclusion
that it appeared that the said entry had been mutated in the
revenue record by mistake and, therefore, the same was required
to be corrected by deleting the name of the temple trust and
entering the name of Charan Mandan Samat in the revenue
record. Pursuant thereto, an entry came to be mutated in the
revenue record and subsequently the said entry came to be
certified by the Mamlatdar, Mundra on 11.05.1969. The said entry
was mutated vide Entry No. 1367. Thereafter, after the sad
demise of Mandan Samat, the names of his legal heirs came to be
mutated in the revenue record.
2.2) The petitioner herein entered into a transaction with the
original holder of the property by executing a registered sale
deed dated 29.06.1984 and on the strength of the said registered
sale deed, he became the absolute owner, occupant, and
possessor of the said property. An application was also preferred
before the revenue authority for mutating his name in the
revenue record. However, at that relevant point of time, due to
disputes pertaining to the issue of stamp duty arising out of the
execution of the registered sale deed, the entry could not be
mutated in the revenue record. After the said dispute came to be
resolved, Entry No. 4084 came to be mutated in the revenue
record on 14.08.1998 by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Jharpada, and the
same was subsequently certified by the competent authority.
Thereafter, the son of the present petitioner intended to start a
business upon the said property and therefore, preferred an
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
application under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code
for conversion of the said land from agricultural to non-
agricultural use. However, the said application was not
entertained and thereafter the District Collector, Kutch, issued a
show-cause notice dated 09.04.2013 seeking cancellation of the
entries mutated in the revenue record vide Entry Nos. 1367, 1705
and 4084. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said show-
cause notice. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the revenue
authority cancelled the aforesaid entries. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the said decision, the petitioner preferred a
revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue
Department. However, the said revision application came to be
dismissed. Hence, challenging the said orders, the present
petition has been filed.
3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Siraj Gori for the petitioner and
learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for Respondent No. 1 – State.
4) Learned advocate Mr. Siraj Gori, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the orders passed by both the revenue
authorities are unjust, illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and against the
established principles of law and therefore, the said orders are
required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present
petition. Learned advocate further submitted that it is an
admitted position of fact that the name of the erstwhile owner,
Charan Mandan Samat, was found available in the revenue record
in the year 1954-55, and somehow a mistake had been
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
committed by the revenue authority concerned, as a result of
which the name of the Temple Trust came to be reflected in the
revenue record. As soon as those facts came to the notice of the
predecessor-in-title, namely Charan Mandan Samat, he preferred
an application on 01.12.1967 seeking necessary correction in the
revenue record. After verifying and scrutinizing all the papers
and documents pertaining to the village land record, the
authority concerned recorded the statements of several villagers
and also prepared a panchkyas and ultimately came to the
conclusion that it appeared that the said entry had been mutated
in the revenue record by mistake. Therefore, the said mistake
was required to be rectified by making necessary correction in
the revenue record, pursuant to which Entry No. 1367 came to be
mutated. The said entry came to be mutated in the revenue
record on 11.05.1967 vide Entry No. 1367 and was subsequently
certified by the Mamlatdar on the same day. Learned advocate
submitted that the revenue authorities never challenged the said
entry before any higher authority and therefore, the same
ultimately attained finality. Thereafter, after the sad demise of
Mandan Samat, the names of his legal heirs came to be mutated
in the revenue record.
4.1) The petitioner herein had purchased the said property from
the original owner and occupant by way of a registered sale deed
dated 29.06.1984 after paying the amount of sale consideration.
Thereafter, he preferred an application for mutating his name in
the revenue record. However, at that relevant point of time,
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
disputes arose between the revenue authorities and the
petitioner, with regard to the stamp duty affixed on the sale
deed. The said dispute came to be resolved in the year 1998 and
thereafter Entry No. 4084 came to be mutated on 14.08.1998.
Since the date of execution of the registered sale deed, the
petitioner has remained in possession, occupation, and
ownership of the said property. Thereafter, the son of the
petitioner intended to carry out business activities upon the said
property and therefore, preferred an application under Section
65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The said application was
not entertained by the authority concerned. However, while
rejecting the said application, the authority concerned heavily
relied upon the Government Circular dated 09.04.2010 and held
that the property originally belonged to a Temple Trust and
therefore, as per the directions contained in the said circular, the
property could not have been sold without obtaining prior
permission from the competent revenue authority.
4.2) Learned advocate submitted that it was at that point of
time that a dispute regarding the title of the property appears to
have arisen and consequently, a show-cause notice came to be
issued to the petitioner for cancellation of the entries mutated in
the revenue record. Learned advocate Mr. Gori submitted that as
soon as the petitioner came to know about the objections raised
by the revenue authority, he immediately submitted an
application before the office of the Charity Commissioner under
the Right To Information Act seeking information regarding
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
registration of the trust. The petitioner received the information
sought and copies of the said documents were placed before the
authority concerned. However, those documents were not
properly considered and only a cursory glance was made upon
the report obtained from the office of the Charity Commissioner.
He submitted that by bare perusal of those documents, one can
easily come to the conclusion that the property in question was
never registered in the office of the Charity Commissioner.
Learned advocate further submitted that the authority
concerned has failed to consider the factual aspect that the name
of the original holder had been mutated in the revenue record on
01.12.1967 and the said entry had already attained finality.
Neither the temple trust nor any third party had ever raised any
objection against mutation of the said entry in the revenue
record.
4.3) He further submitted that after a considerable lapse of
time, on 09.04.2013, a show-cause notice came to be issued at
the instance of the District Collector. Thus, the proceedings came
to be initiated after a lapse of period of more than 46 years.
Learned advocate has heavily relied upon various decisions
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court wherein
it has been consistently held that though no specific period of
limitation is prescribed under the statute for initiation of suo
motu proceedings, such powers are required to be exercised
within a reasonable period of time. Herein, in the present case,
the proceedings have been initiated after an inordinate delay of
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
about 46 years and therefore, solely on that ground, the
impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4.4) He further submitted that before the authority concerned,
various issues were specifically pointed out and relevant
documents were produced. However, without considering the
same, the SSRD merely reiterated the findings and reasons
assigned by the Collector and dismissed the revision application.
Learned advocate further submitted that it is also an admitted
position of fact that time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court have held that while deciding RTS proceedings,
if the authority concerned is of the opinion that an entry has
been mutated in contravention of any statutory provision or that
there is breach of any enactment, separate proceedings under
the concerned statute are required to be initiated. However, such
issues cannot be adjudicated in RTS proceedings on the basis of
the same set of facts and evidence. He submitted that while
cancelling the entries in RTS proceedings, the Collector recorded
findings regarding the alleged breach of the Government Circular
dated 09.04.2010 and held that trust property could not have
been sold without prior permission of the competent authority.
Therefore, from a bare perusal of the order, it becomes evident
that the authority concerned has made cross-utilization of
powers while exercising RTS jurisdiction.
4.5) He therefore submitted that the principles laid down by
this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Co-operative
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
Housing Society Ltd. vs. Special Secretary, Revenue
Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991 (1) GLR 113, are
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and
therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and
setting aside the impugned orders. Learned advocate further
submitted that while cancelling the entries mutated in the
revenue record, the Collector has heavily relied upon the
Government Circular dated 09.04.2010. He submitted that by
making a cursory glance at the contents of the said circular, it
would clearly reveal that the same is not applicable within the
territorial limits of Kutch District. Despite such a clear position,
the authority concerned heavily relied upon the said circular and
passed the impugned order. Therefore, on that count also, the
impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set
aside. Considering the cumulative effect of the documents and
material available on record, it crystallise the position of fact that
while passing the impugned orders, the authorities concerned
failed to take into consideration the settled proposition of law
and delivered the decision in contravention of the established
principles governing the field. Hence, the impugned orders are
required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present
petition.
5) Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 – State, stated that the order passed by the
Collector has been confirmed by the SSRD in revision
proceedings and the orders passed by both the quasi-judicial
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
authorities based upon concurrent findings have been challenged
by way of the present petition. He submitted that this Court is
generally very slow in interfering with decisions rendered by
revenue authorities in quasi-judicial proceedings based upon
concurrent findings of fact. He further submitted that it is an
admitted position of fact that the petitioner herein purchased
the property in question by way of a registered sale deed from
the erstwhile owner, and an entry to that effect came to be
mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 4084 dated
14.08.1998. He submitted that in fact, after the year 1955, the
name of the Temple Trust was found available in the revenue
record and the erstwhile owner of the property was shown as a
tenant of the said property. Thereafter, on the basis of an
application submitted by the concerned person, the said entry
came to be corrected. Learned AGP fairly submitted that the
entry mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 1367 dated
11.05.1969 was never challenged before any higher authority and
therefore, had attained finality. However, it appears that at the
time of carrying out the said correction, the authority concerned
had not undertaken proper verification and had not followed the
procedure in true spirit and proper perspective. As soon as those
facts came to the notice of the Collector, a show-cause notice
came to be issued.
5.1) He submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that in
the year 2012, an application was preferred under Section 65 of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code seeking conversion of the land
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
from agricultural to non-agricultural use. At the time of
verification and scrutiny of the relevant documents in connection
with the said application, the aforesaid facts came to the notice
of the authority concerned. He further submitted that the entry
which came to be mutated in the revenue record was based upon
a misconception of facts and on a wrong premise. Therefore,
when the basis of mutation of the entry is erroneous, in that
event, the mistake committed by the revenue authority can
always be corrected. No limitation is prescribed under the statute
for exercising such powers and therefore, the Collector was well
within his jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings.
5.3) Learned AGP submitted that after verifying and scrutinizing
all the documents and material available on record, the District
Collector came to the conclusion that the property in question
originally belonged to the Temple Trust and that the erstwhile
owner was merely a tenant of the said property. He submitted
that by mistake, the entry came to be corrected in the year 1967
and therefore, the said mistake was required to be rectified.
Therefore, the orders passed by the revenue authorities are just,
fair, reasonable, and in consonance with the settled principles of
law. He further submitted that this Court, while exercising its writ
jurisdiction, is generally very slow in interfering with such
concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities. Hence,
the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
perused the record and proceedings. Before dwelling into the
issue involved in the present petition, it would be appropriate to
refer to the relevant sequence of events of incidents and factual
aspects emerging from the record.
6.1) It is the specific case of the petitioner that the land bearing
Survey No. 86 situated at Village Zarapara, Taluka Mundra,
District Kutch originally belonged to one Mandan Samat and that
since the date of Independence, his name was reflected in the
revenue record as owner, occupier and possessor of the said
property. The documents placed on record clearly indicate that
from the year 1954-55 onwards, the name of Mandan Samat was
continuously reflected in the revenue record. Thereafter,
Mutation Entry No. 298 came to be recorded in the revenue
record stating that the property belonged to the temple trust of
“Mata no Madh” and that Mandan Samat was occupying the same
as a tenant. The said entry continued in the revenue record for a
considerable period. In the year 1967, the said fact came to the
notice of Mandan Samat and therefore, he approached the
competent authority contending that a mistake had occurred in
the revenue record. Despite being the owner, occupier and
possessor of the property since Independence, an incorrect entry
had been made showing the temple trust as owner and himself as
a tenant.
6.2) After verifying the veracity of the claim made by Mandan
Samat and after considering the relevant material on record, the
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
concerned authority came to the conclusion that an erroneous
entry had been recorded in the revenue record and that the same
required correction. Consequently, Mutation Entry No. 367 came
to be certified by the Mamlatdar, Mundra on 11.05.1969,
whereby the name of Mandan Samat was restored in the revenue
record. Since then, the property continued to stand in his name
and after his demise, the names of his legal heirs came to be
mutated in the revenue record by way of the relevant entries.
The legal heirs of Mandan Samat continued to remain in
possession of the property and thereafter executed a registered
sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 29.06.1986. Pursuant to
the execution of the said sale deed, the relevant mutation entry
came to be recorded in the revenue record. It is also an admitted
position of fact that certain disputes arose between the
Government and the petitioner regarding the valuation and
payment of stamp duty in respect of the said sale deed.
Consequently, separate proceedings remained pending for some
time and, upon culmination thereof, the revenue entry was
ultimately certified. Subsequently, as the son of the petitioner
intended to undertake business activities on the said land, an
application was submitted before the competent authority
seeking conversion of the land from agricultural to non-
agricultural use. Though the said application was not entertained
by the District Collector, during the scrutiny of the record, the
authority concerned formed an opinion that the land originally
belonged to the temple trust. He has heavily put reliance upon
the Government Circular dated 09.04.2010 and it was observed
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
that such property could not have been transferred in favour of a
private individual without prior permission of the competent
authority. On the basis of the said premise, directions were
issued to initiate appropriate proceedings, pursuant to which the
mutation entries standing in favour of the petitioner came to be
cancelled.
6.3) Learned advocate who represents petitioner vehemently
submitted that immediately upon learning about the aforesaid
developments, efforts were made to obtain the relevant
documents from the Government authorities. However, as the
same could not be secured, an application was ultimately
preferred before the office of the Charity Commissioner seeking
details of the temple trust purportedly owning the property. The
information supplied by the office of the Charity Commissioner
was placed before the SSRD, however, no due consideration was
given to the said material. A copy of the documents obtained
from the office of the Charity Commissioner has been placed on
record. Upon perusal of the same, it emerges that only eight
properties pertaining to the temple trust are registered within
the territorial limits of the concerned Taluka. Significantly, the
name of Mandan Samat does not appear in the incumbency list or
any other record pertaining to the said trust. Prima facie,
therefore, it appears that no registered temple trust
corresponding to the claim advanced by the authorities exists on
record. In the absence of any material establishing the existence
of such a trust, the ownership claim sought to be asserted
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
through the impugned proceedings becomes highly doubtful.
Another important aspect which cannot be overlooked is that the
predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had successfully sought
correction of the revenue entry, and the authority concerned,
after conducting due inquiry and recording statements of village
residents, had ordered mutation of the entry in favour of Mandan
Samat. The said entry attained finality as neither the temple trust
nor any other person challenged the same before any competent
forum. For the sake of arguments it is to be belived that the
property originally belonged to the temple trust and that
Mandan Samat was merely a tenant, it is difficult to comprehend
why no objection was raised by the alleged trust and why no
proceedings were initiated before any competent authority for
several decades. The complete absence of any challenge to the
entry recorded in favour of Mandan Samat lends substantial
support to the case of the petitioner and strengthens the
presumption regarding the correctness of the long-standing
revenue entries.
6.4) So far as second limb of arguments canvassed by the
learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, the
authorities have heavily relied upon Government Circular dated
09.04.2010 while cancelling the mutation entries. However, by
bare perusal of the said circular crytsallise the position of fact
that its applicability is confined to the Saurashtra region and
does not extend to the Kutch District or the remaining parts of
the State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the property in question is
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of District Kutch.
Therefore, the foundation upon which the authorities proceeded
appears to be legally unsustainable. Once the circular itself is
found inapplicable to the facts of the present case, the reliance
placed thereon by the authorities becomes wholly misconceived.
6.5) This Court has also examined the record and proceedings. It
transpires that the entry recorded in favour of the predecessor-
in-title of the petitioner remained in force and unchallenged for
several decades. Thereafter, after an inordinate delay of
approximately 43 years, the Collector sought to exercise suo
motu revisional powers and reopened the matter. The authority
cannot exercise jurisdiction after such an inordinate delay. It is
well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court that revisional powers are required to be
exercised within a reasonable period, particularly when valuable
rights have crystallized in favour of parties on the strength of
long-standing entries.
6.6) At this juncture, I would like to rely and refer to the
decision rendered by this Court in the case of Chandulal
Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. ,
reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788 , where the Division Bench of this
Court has specifically observed that the settled things cannot be
unsettled after long delay. Relevant observations made by the
Division Bench of this Court read as under:
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
"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."
6.7) Similarly, in decision of this Court in the case of Evergreen
Apartment Cooperative Housing Society vs. Special Secretary,
Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991 (1) GLR
113 it has been observed has 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."
6.8) In view of the above-stated factual and legal aspects, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the authorities below
failed to appreciate the documents and material available on
record in its true spirit and proper perspective. The impugned
orders are based on a circular which does not apply to the
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026
C/SCA/1167/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
present case. They also overlook important documents produced
by the petitioner and seek to disturb revenue entries that had
become final many years ago. The proceedings initiated after an
unexplained delay of about 43 years are, therefore,
unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned orders
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
7) In view of the aforesaid discussion and as per the settled
proposition of law, the present petition succeeds and is
accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.07.2013 and
19.08.2016 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively,
cancelling Mutation Entry Nos. 1367, 1705 and 4084 are hereby
quashed and set aside. Consequently, the revenue entries
reflecting the petitioner's rights pursuant to the registered sale
deed dated 29.06.1984 shall stand restored and continue to
operate. Rule is made absolute.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Jul 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 20 21:08:25 IST 2026