Gujarat HC Preserves Land-Buyer’s Revenue Record Pending Revision, Citing Six-Year Delay

The petitioner challenged the SSRD’s order dated 25 July 2025 rejecting interim relief in a pending revision against the Collector’s order dated 7 March 2025.

The Collector had set aside an earlier Deputy Collector order concerning mutation of a registered sale deed and directed an inquiry under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The petitioner contended that the Collector had initiated revision proceedings about six years after the Deputy Collector’s order and that the Collector had acted without the requisite inquiry and opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner sought protection of the revenue entry while the SSRD revision remained pending.

In a connected civil application, respondent No. 5—the erstwhile vendor—was deleted from the petition’s array of parties.

The Court considered Section 211 read with Section 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, as the basis for the Collector’s revisional proceedings, and Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in relation to the proposed inquiry into an alleged breach.

It treated the six-year delay in taking the Deputy Collector’s order into revision as a relevant factor in assessing whether interim protection was justified, observing that such delay would not fall within a reasonable period.

No precedent was cited, and the Court did not determine the merits of the statutory issues.

The Court noted that the Collector’s proceedings had been initiated approximately six years after the Deputy Collector’s order and considered that delay inconsistent with a reasonable period.

It also found a prima facie case in the petitioner’s favour, with the underlying revision still pending before the SSRD.

In those circumstances, it considered status quo in respect of the revenue record appropriate until the revision was finally decided.

The Court expressly left the merits to the SSRD for independent determination.

It directed that the petitioner’s application for an early hearing be decided in accordance with law and clarified that the SSRD must decide the revision independently, without being prejudiced by the High Court’s order.