A Collector Cannot Use Section 211 to Review Its Own Earlier Mutation Order.

The dispute concerned Survey No. 80 at Village Hasanpar, which the judgment records was occupied by the respondent’s father under a government certificate issued in 1937.

After part of the land was acquired for a national highway, compensation was paid to him.

In 1969, Entry No. 466 recording his and two others’ names as administrators was entered in the revenue record.

Following his father’s death, the respondent sought permission to cultivate the land.

The Deputy Collector rejected the application in 2004 on the ground that the land belonged to the Government; the Collector affirmed that decision in 2012 and also cancelled Entry No. 466.

The SSRD allowed the respondent’s revision in 2014, set aside the lower authorities’ orders, and restored Entry No. 466.

The State challenged the SSRD’s order under Articles 226 and 227.

Whether the Collector, while exercising powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, could cancel Entry No. 466 in collateral proceedings and thereby review an entry made in 1969.

Whether the cancellation of the entry after 43 years, without an inquiry or an opportunity of hearing to the affected party, was lawful.

Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 empowers specified revenue authorities to call for and examine the proceedings of subordinate revenue officers and pass appropriate orders concerning their legality, propriety, or regularity; it does not authorize a Collector to review the Collector’s own prior order.

A quasi-judicial authority may exercise only powers conferred by statute, and an order cannot be reviewed or recalled without statutory authorization.

Cancellation of a mutation entry also requires proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, and must occur within a reasonable time.

The Court reasoned that the Collector, in deciding the respondent’s application for permission to cultivate, went beyond the scope of the appeal and cancelled Entry No. 466 without conducting an inquiry or giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard.

Because the entry had stood for 43 years, and Section 211 did not empower the Collector to review the Collector’s own earlier order, the Court regarded the cancellation as outside the Collector’s authority and procedurally defective.

The Court’s reasoning therefore supports the SSRD’s decision to set aside the Collector’s order and restore the entry.

These directions are internally inconsistent: restoring the lower authorities’ orders appears to conflict with restoring Entry No. 466, and also conflicts with the Court’s preceding reasoning, which criticizes the Collector’s cancellation and describes the SSRD’s order as requiring no interference.

The judgment provides no clarification of that inconsistency.