PATEL NANIBEN WD/O OF HIRABHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1828 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
PATEL NANIBEN WD/O OF HIRABHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH K SAVJANI(2225) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR MITUL GAUTAM AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

Date : 02/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached
this Court, calling in question the legality and validity of the order
th
dated 27 December 2018 passed by the Special Secretary,
Revenue Department (Appeals), Government of Gujarat, in
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
th
Revision Application No.47 of 2017, whereby the order dated 24
July 2017 passed by the District Collector, Modasa, as well as the
th
order dated 24 March 2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, came
st
to be set aside. Consequently, Entry No.507 dated 1 May 1996
came to be confirmed.
[2] The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the
present petition may be stated as under:
[2.1] At the outset, it is relevant to note that the petitioners
and respondent No.5 are family members.
[2.2] It is the case of the petitioners that deceased Hirabhai
Mavabhai Patel had purchased agricultural land bearing Revenue
Survey No.115 paiki 7, situated at Village Godh, Taluka Malpur,
th
District Arvalli, by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 29 May
1967. Pursuant to the said Sale Deed, Revenue Entry No.175 came
to be posted in the record of rights in the name of Hirabhai
Mavabhai Patel. The said Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel expired on 8th
October 2012.
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
[2.3] According to the petitioners, after the death of Hirabhai
Mavabhai Patel, respondent No.5 attempted to disturb their
possession over the land in question, claiming to have a 50% share
therein pursuant to Revenue Entry No.507, which was posted on
1st May 1996.
[2.4] Upon coming to know about the posting of Entry
No.507 dated 1st May 1996, the petitioners, after collecting all the
relevant documents, approached the Deputy Collector by way of an
RTS Appeal, along with an application seeking condonation of
delay, challenging the said mutation Entry No.507 dated 1st May
1996. The Deputy Collector, Bayad, vide order dated 12th June
2012, condoned the delay.
[2.5] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent
No.5 approached the Collector, Arvalli, by way of a Revision
th
Application. However, the Collector, Arvalli, vide order dated 27
July 2015, confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector
condoning the delay and directed the Deputy Collector, Bayad, to
decide the appeal on merits. It is relevant to note that the order
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
passed by the Collector condoning the delay attained finality, as
respondent No.5 did not challenge the same.
[2.6] Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Deputy
Collector proceeded to decide the appeal on merits and, vide order
th
dated 24 March 2017, allowed RTS Appeal No.58 of 2013-14 and
cancelled Entry No.507, inter alia, holding that no statement of
Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel had been obtained and that Hirabhai
Mavabhai Patel had never signed any document giving his consent
for recording a 50% share in favour of respondent No.5.
[2.7] Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5
approached the Collector, Arvalli, by way of Revision Application
No.RTS/Revision/No.26 of 2017. The Collector, Arvalli, vide order
th
dated 24 July 2017, rejected the Revision Application and
confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Bayad.
[2.8] Against the aforesaid order, respondent No.5
approached the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, by way of
Revision Application No.47 of 2017. The learned Special Secretary,
Revenue Department, vide order dated 27th December 2018,
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
allowed the Revision Application filed by respondent No.5, mainly
on the ground that the challenge to Entry No.507 dated 1st May
1996, having been raised after a period of about 20 years, was
barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 2005, and also taking
into consideration the fact that Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2017
was pending, the outcome of which would govern the rights of the
parties.
[3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the
present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, seeking appropriate reliefs.
[4] Heard learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Savjani for the
petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for respondent No.5,
and learned A.G.P. Mr. Mitul Gautam for the respondents-State
authorities.
[5] Since the issue involved in the present petition lies in a
narrow compass and is covered by a catena of decisions, with the
consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing and is
being decided by this order at the admission stage.
[6] Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Jasani
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.5, and
learned A.G.P. Mr. Mitul Gautam waives service of notice of Rule
on behalf of the respondents-State authorities.
[7] Learned advocate Mr. Savjani for the petitioners, while
assailing the impugned order, has made the following submissions:
[7.1] It is submitted that the order passed by the learned
Special Secretary, Revenue Department, is ex facie illegal, contrary
to the provisions of law and against the settled position of law, and
therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[7.2] It is submitted that the learned Special Secretary,
Revenue Department, ought to have appreciated the findings
recorded by the Deputy Collector as well as the Collector with
regard to the fact that the consent of Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel was
not obtained and/or his statement was not recorded. It is submitted
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
that the said findings have not been controverted by any credible or
trustworthy evidence or material on record. Therefore, the findings
of fact recorded by the Deputy Collector as well as the Collector
ought not to have been disregarded by the learned Special
Secretary, Revenue Department, by placing reliance upon irrelevant
statements of the panchas and other persons. According to learned
advocate Mr. Savjani, the statement of Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel
was the most relevant material which ought to have been recorded
by the authorities at the time of posting Entry No.507. Therefore,
without disturbing the aforesaid findings of fact, the order passed
by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department, is not
sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
[7.3] It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the
learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department, with regard to the
pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2017 is also factually
incorrect. It is submitted that Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2017 is a
suit for partition and does not concern the land in question and,
therefore, its pendency is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
deciding the present proceedings. Be that as it may, it is fairly
submitted that Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 2017, seeking partition
amongst the parties, is pending before the competent Civil Court.
[7.4] It is lastly submitted that the learned Special Secretary,
Revenue Department, has committed a serious error in holding that
the challenge to Entry No.507 was barred by limitation under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly when the said issue had
already been considered and decided by the Collector vide order
dated 27th July 2015. The said order has attained finality in the
absence of any challenge thereto by respondent No.5.
[8] By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate
Mr. Savjani for the petitioners has requested this Court to allow the
present petition and grant the reliefs as prayed for, in the interest
of justice.
[9] Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Jasani for respondent
No.5, while supporting the impugned order, has made the
following submissions:
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
[9.1] It is submitted that the order passed by the learned
Special Secretary, Revenue Department, is perfectly justified in the
facts and circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that
this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, ought not to entertain the present petition by
reappreciating the findings of fact recorded by the authorities
below.
[9.2] It is vehemently submitted that Entry No.507 was
mutated during the lifetime of Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel and was
never challenged by him during his lifetime. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the challenge to Entry No.507 after a lapse of about
20 years is itself legally untenable. The learned Special Secretary,
Revenue Department, has, therefore, rightly passed the impugned
order and, consequently, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
[9.3] It is submitted that the factum of 50% share and the
corresponding entry in the revenue record is supported by the
family members of the petitioners and respondent No.5 by way of
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
affidavits. It was pointed out before the revenue authorities that,
although the registered Sale Deed stood in the name of Hirabhai
Mavabhai Patel, respondent No.5 was entitled to one-half share in
the land in question. It is, therefore, submitted that the authorities
ought not to have cancelled Entry No.507, particularly when the
same was supported by the other family members.
[10] Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and have gone through the materials produced on record.
No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties except what
are stated hereinabove.
[11] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having considered the material produced on
record, a short question that falls for consideration of this Court is
th
whether the impugned order dated 27 December 2018 passed by
the Special Secretary, Revenue Department can be said to be legal?
[12] While deciding the aforesaid question, it is required to
be kept in mind that the present is a revenue entry proceeding
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
between the family members. The law with regard to revenue entry
is settled by way of catena of decisions. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jamnabai and others vs. Vasudev and others
[Civil Appeal No…. of 2026 arising out of SLP(C) No.39 of 2026
th
decided on 20 August 2026] reported in 2026 INSC 900 has
held as under:
“18. The next question pertains to validity of relinquishment
deed purported to be executed by Ramprasad and the revenue
proceedings that culminated into mutating the names of
respondents in revenue records.
22. Equally, the mutation recorded pursuant to Ex.D22 could
not by itself extinguish Ramprasad's title. It is settled law that
an entry in the revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes
title and exists essentially for fiscal purposes, as held by this
Court in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Others [(1996) 6 SCC
223]. The order of the Naib Tehsildar may regulate the revenue
record, but it cannot, merely by recording one person's name in
place of another, operate as a conveyance or a relinquishment of
proprietary rights, and the civil court remains fully competent
to determine the underlying title, which the revenue entry
follows rather than creates. The statutory presumption of
correctness attaching to a revenue entry under Section 117 of
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 is a rebuttable
evidentiary presumption and not a presumption of title, and it
must be weighed along with the rest of the evidence, which the
first appellate court did, finding it displaced for the specific
reasons recorded above. For these reasons the High Court fell
into error in holding that Ex.D5, whether taken alone or
together with the revenue proceedings under Ex.D22,
established that Ramprasad had relinquished his proprietary
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
interest in the suit property.”
[13] Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of
law, the following undisputed facts, which emerge from the record,
deserve consideration:
[13.1] The land in question was exclusively purchased by
deceased Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel by way of a registered Sale Deed
th
dated 29 May 1967.
[13.2] So far as the procedure adopted for mutation of Entry
No.507 is concerned, both the Deputy Collector as well as the
Collector, upon appreciation of the material available on record,
have concurrently recorded a finding that, at the time of mutation
of the said entry, the statement of Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel was
never recorded. It has further been recorded that there is no
signature of Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel available on the record
evidencing his consent to part with 50% share in the land in
question in favour of respondent No.5.
[13.3] Entry No.507 came to be posted in the revenue record
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
st
on 1 May 1996, whereby 50% share in the land in question was
recorded in favour of respondent No.5. The said entry was
subsequently challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy
Collector along with an application seeking condonation of delay.
The delay was duly condoned by the Deputy Collector, which order
was thereafter confirmed by the Collector. Significantly, the order
condoning the delay was never challenged by respondent No.5 and,
therefore, the same attained finality.
[14] In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts, if the
impugned order passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue
Department, is examined, this Court is of the considered view that
the same cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
[14.1] The principal issue which fell for consideration before
the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department, was whether
Entry No.507, recording 50% share in favour of respondent No.5,
could have been sustained in view of the findings concurrently
recorded by the Deputy Collector and the Collector that the
statement of Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel had never been recorded and
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
that there was neither any signature nor any consent of Hirabhai
Mavabhai Patel available on record in support of such mutation.
[14.2] However, while setting aside the orders passed by the
Deputy Collector and the Collector, the learned Special Secretary,
Revenue Department, has failed to record any cogent finding
dealing with the aforesaid material findings of fact recorded by the
authorities below. There is no discussion as to how the absence of
the statement, signature or consent of Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel
could be overlooked while upholding the mutation of 50% share in
favour of respondent No.5.
[14.3] Instead, the learned Special Secretary, Revenue
Department, has principally placed reliance upon certain
statements of the panchas and other persons to conclude that there
existed a family settlement in respect of the land in question and
that, pursuant thereto, one-half share came to be recorded in
favour of respondent No.5. Such conclusion, in the opinion of this
Court, could not have been arrived at without first dealing with the
categorical findings recorded by the authorities below regarding the
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
absence of any statement, signature or consent of the original
purchaser, namely, Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel.
[14.4] It is well settled that mutation entries in the revenue
record do not, by themselves, create or extinguish title. The
revenue authorities are required to follow the prescribed procedure
while effecting such entries. In the present case, the very basis and
procedure for recording Entry No.507 have been found wanting by
the Deputy Collector and the Collector. The learned Special
Secretary, Revenue Department, while exercising revisional
jurisdiction, was therefore required to examine and deal with those
findings by assigning cogent reasons. The failure to do so renders
the impugned order vulnerable to interference in exercise of the
jurisdiction of this Court.
[14.5] The learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department,
has further committed an error in holding that the challenge to
Entry No.507 was barred by limitation under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act. The record clearly indicates that the delay in
challenging the said entry had already been considered by the
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
th
Deputy Collector, who had condoned the delay by order dated 12
June 2012. The said order was thereafter challenged before the
th
Collector and was confirmed vide order dated 27 July 2015. The
said order of the Collector was never challenged by respondent
No.5 and, consequently, the decision with regard to condonation of
delay attained finality.
[14.6] Once the issue of condonation of delay had been
conclusively decided by the competent revenue authorities and the
said decision had attained finality, the learned Special Secretary,
Revenue Department, could not have reopened and reconsidered
the very same issue while deciding the subsequent revision. The
finding recorded by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue
Department, on the aspect of limitation is, therefore, contrary to
the record and cannot be sustained.
[14.7] Even otherwise, the learned Special Secretary, Revenue
Department, has placed reliance upon the pendency of Regular
Civil Suit No.54 of 2017 while passing the impugned order. It is
undisputed that although the said suit is a suit for partition, the
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
land forming the subject matter of the present proceedings is not
the subject matter of the said suit. The pendency of such suit,
therefore, had no relevance to the controversy which arose for
consideration before the learned Special Secretary, Revenue
Department. The reliance placed upon the said suit, without
examining its actual subject matter and its bearing upon the land in
question, further reflects non-application of mind.
[14.8] Thus, the impugned order suffers from material errors
apparent on the face of the record. The learned Special Secretary,
Revenue Department, has neither dealt with the material findings
concurrently recorded by the authorities below regarding the
absence of the statement, signature and consent of Hirabhai
Mavabhai Patel, nor was justified in reopening the issue of
limitation which had already attained finality. The reliance placed
upon the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2017 is also
misplaced, as the said suit admittedly does not concern the land in
question.
[15] In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that
th
the impugned order dated 27 December 2018 passed by the
Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, in
Revision No.47 of 2017, cannot be sustained either on facts or in
law. The same, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[16] Accordingly, the present petition succeeds and is hereby
th
allowed. The impugned order dated 27 December 2018 passed by
the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of
Gujarat, in Revision No.47 of 2017, is hereby quashed and set
aside. Consequently, the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and
the Collector shall stand restored.
[17] At this stage, it has been pointed out to this Court that
Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 2017, being a suit for partition between
the parties, is pending before the competent Civil Court and that
the subject matter thereof also has a bearing upon the rights of the
parties in respect of the land in question. In order to avoid any
prejudice to the parties and by way of abundant caution, it is
clarified that the ultimate outcome of the said suit shall be binding
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026

C/SCA/1828/2019 (GJHC240066532019) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
upon all the parties. The revenue authorities shall, accordingly,
carry out necessary corrections or modifications in the revenue
record, if warranted, in accordance with and subject to the final
outcome of the said suit.
[18] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
CHANDRESH
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:55:38 IST 2026