Gujarat HC Restores 1956 Land Record Entry Listing Adopted Nephews Among Heirs After Relatives Waited 47 Years To Challenge It

The petitioners and private respondents are descendants of Lalabhai. Following the death of Manabhai in 1956, Entry No. 203 dated 12 October 1956 was made in the revenue record for Survey Nos. 206, 209 and 210, recording the petitioners and other heirs of Manabhai.

In 2003, the respondents challenged the entry; the Deputy Collector allowed their appeal on 24 June 2004 and cancelled it. The petitioners’ subsequent revenue challenges were rejected by the Collector and the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals).

Separately, the petitioners obtained a decree for partition, declaration and possession in Special Civil Suit No. 209 of 2004 on 15 May 2015. The respondents’ application to condone delay in appealing that decree was rejected on 20 July 2022, and they did not challenge that rejection.

Whether the respondents’ challenge to Entry No. 203, brought approximately 47 years after its mutation, could be sustained despite the unexplained delay.

Whether the impugned revenue orders should stand in light of the civil court decree determining the parties’ rights in the lands.

A challenge to a mutation entry must be brought within a reasonable time; what is reasonable depends on the circumstances, and delay must be satisfactorily explained.

Mutation entries are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not themselves determine title; questions of right, title and interest are for the competent civil court to decide.

The Court also exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the impugned revenue orders.

The Court considered the 47-year interval between Entry No. 203 and the respondents’ challenge excessive. Their assertion that they obtained the relevant entries only in 2003 did not satisfactorily explain the delay, particularly given the parties’ family relationship and the entry’s recording of other heirs as well as the petitioners.

The Court further noted that the civil decree had determined the parties’ rights in the lands and that the respondents’ attempted appeal had not proceeded after their delay-condonation application was rejected. Since the revenue entry was fiscal in nature, the revenue authorities’ decision to cancel it could not displace the civil court’s determination of rights.

It restored Entry No. 203 and made no order as to costs.