Belated suo motu revision cannot unsettle registered conveyances or vested property rights.

Harijan Vagha Alanda was allotted 5 acres of land bearing Survey No. 207/Paiki at Village Baroi by the Assistant Collector, Anjar, in 1969 for agricultural purposes.

His possession was subsequently regularised by the Mamlatdar under Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code upon payment of fine, and his name was mutated through Entry No. 3113, certified on 30 January 1997.

The land was thereafter converted from new tenure to old tenure for agricultural purposes, and the relevant entry was certified in 1999.

Harijan Vagha sold the land to Latif Ayub Kevar by registered sale deed dated 22 December 1997, and the petitioner purchased it from Latif by registered sale deed dated 21 December 2001; the corresponding mutation entry in the petitioner’s favour was certified on 28 February 2002.

After approximately ten years, the Deputy Collector recommended suo motu revision of Entry No. 3113 and the subsequent entries, alleging irregularity in the original allotment and seeking resumption of the land by the Government.

The Collector initiated proceedings under Rule 108(6) of the Land Revenue Rules and, by order dated 2 May 2012, cancelled the relevant mutation entries, set aside the conversion order, and directed that the land vest in the Government.

The SSRD dismissed the petitioner’s revision under Rule 108(6A) by order dated 4 February 2016.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the revenue authorities could exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Rule 108(6) after an unexplained delay of approximately ten years to unsettle certified revenue entries and settled transactions.

2. Whether the revenue authorities could cancel the petitioner’s mutation entry and direct vesting of the land in the Government when the petitioner claimed title under an unchallenged registered sale deed.

3. Whether the proceedings were vitiated by failure to issue notice to Harijan Vagha, whose original allotment and mutation entry were also questioned.

The Court applied Rule 108(6) and Rule 108(6A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules concerning suo motu revision and revisional remedies in revenue-entry proceedings.

It held that, even where no express limitation period is prescribed, revisional or suo motu powers must be exercised within a reasonable time; an unexplained and inordinate delay renders the exercise arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law.

Relying on Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695, the Court reiterated that belated exercise of suo motu power may amount to a fraud upon the statute, and that even allegations of fraud do not permit revision after an indefinite lapse of time.

The Court also relied on State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, 1969 (2) SCC 187; Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale, (2009) 9 SCC 352; and Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya v. State of Gujarat, 2013 (2) GLR 1788, for the requirement of reasonable-time exercise of revisional powers.

Further, revenue authorities cannot unilaterally annul or effectively nullify a registered sale deed; such questions must be adjudicated by a competent civil court.

The Court found that the original allotment, regularisation, conversion to old tenure, and successive mutation entries had remained unchallenged for substantial periods, while the petitioner had purchased the land in 2001 after relying on the revenue record and a registered conveyance.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated only in 2011, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay, making the exercise of revisional jurisdiction legally unreasonable under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court.

The Court further held that cancelling the petitioner’s entry and vesting the land in the Government would, in substance, nullify the registered sale transaction—an act beyond the authority of revenue officials in mutation proceedings.

The proceedings were independently defective because Harijan Vagha, the original allottee whose entry was challenged, was not issued notice or joined as a party, thereby undermining the assumption of jurisdiction and the fairness of the proceedings.

It held that the Collector’s suo motu action, initiated after an unexplained delay of approximately ten years, was arbitrary and unsustainable, and that the revenue authorities could not effectively annul the petitioner’s registered sale deed or resume the land through RTS proceedings.

The orders dated 2 May 2012 passed by the District Collector, Kutch, and 4 February 2016 passed by the SSRD were quashed and set aside.

The writ application was allowed and the Rule was made absolute to that extent.