Belated RTS proceedings cannot unsettle long-standing certified revenue entries absent fraud or forgery.

Respondent No.1 and the father of Respondent No.2 purchased the subject agricultural land through a registered sale deed dated 26 August 1986. The transaction was recorded and certified in Revenue Entry No.1557.

Respondent No.1 subsequently relinquished his rights in favour of the father of Respondent No.2 through a registered relinquishment deed dated 6 October 1987, pursuant to which Revenue Entry No.3165 was mutated and certified. Following the death of the father of Respondent No.2, succession was recorded through Revenue Entry No.3167, certified on 29 December 2007.

In 2014, on an application by a third party, the revenue authorities alleged that the original purchasers were not agriculturists and that the transaction violated Sections 54 and 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949. The Collector initiated suo motu RTS proceedings and, by order dated 29 April 2015, cancelled the relevant revenue entries and directed forfeiture and vesting of the land in the State Government.

The petitioners purchased the land from Respondent No.2 by a registered sale deed dated 25 May 2015, after the Collector’s order but before its effect was reflected in the revenue record. Their purchase was recorded in Revenue Entry No.4434, which was subsequently certified. The petitioners, who were not parties to the Collector’s proceedings, challenged the order before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, but the revision was dismissed on 24 August 2017. They thereafter invoked Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Collector could initiate suo motu RTS proceedings approximately 28 years after certification of the original transaction and cancel the revenue entries on the basis of the alleged statutory breach.

Whether the Collector could determine an alleged breach of Sections 54 and 75 of the 1949 Ordinance and order forfeiture and vesting of the land in the State Government in RTS proceedings, without initiating separate proceedings under the Ordinance.

Whether the cancellation of the certified revenue entries was sustainable when it was based primarily on the absence of a report or documents regarding the agriculturist status of the original purchasers, despite the earlier verification and certification of the entries.

The Court applied Sections 54 and 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, holding that an alleged statutory breach must be determined through the procedure prescribed under the Ordinance and cannot be conclusively adjudicated merely in RTS proceedings.

Under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, RTS entries have primarily fiscal significance and do not create or extinguish title; revenue authorities cannot independently invalidate an underlying transaction on the assumption that it violates another statute, as held in Evergreen Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department.

Suo motu or revisional powers, even where no express limitation period is prescribed, must be exercised within a reasonable time; settled transactions and possession cannot ordinarily be unsettled after prolonged delay, as recognised in State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Nath, (1969) 2 SCC 187; Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, (1997) 6 SCC 71; and Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale, (2009) 9 SCC 352.

The Court also relied on State of Gujarat v. Hussainbhai Satarbhai Meman, 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 249387, for the principles that a transaction allegedly hit by Section 54 is not void ab initio, that invalidity must be declared after a lawful inquiry within a reasonable period, and that forfeiture or vesting in the State cannot be ordered without statutory authority.

The Court found that the original transaction had remained reflected in the revenue record for nearly 28 years through successive certified entries, without any allegation or proof of fraud or forgery warranting such belated reopening. The initiation of suo motu proceedings in 2014 was therefore grossly delayed and contrary to the requirement that revisional powers be exercised within a reasonable period.

The Collector also exceeded the limited scope of RTS proceedings by presuming a breach of Sections 54 and 75 without conducting separate proceedings under the Ordinance.

Further, the Collector relied on the non-submission of a report by the Mamlatdar and the absence of certain records to presume that the original purchasers were not agriculturists. That presumption could not displace the earlier verification and certification of the entries, particularly when no contrary material had been produced.

Finally, the direction to forfeit and vest the property in the State Government was held to be without jurisdiction because the revenue authority lacked power to impose such a consequence in RTS proceedings absent clear statutory authority.

The direction for forfeiture and vesting of the land in the State Government was also held to be without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Collector’s order in Revision Case No. Land/3/Revision/31/38 and the SSRD’s order dated 24 August 2017 in Revision Application No. MVV/Gharkhed/Gir/1/2015 were quashed and set aside; the Rule was made absolute to that extent.