Gujarat HC Restores Buyers’ Mutation Entry After Society Lien Cleared, Rejecting Revenue Officials’ New Section 63 Objection

The petitioners purchased agricultural land by registered sale deed dated 11 July 2011, and mutation Entry No. 2391 was made in their favour.

The Circle Officer cancelled the entry because the land was subject to a Cooperative Society’s lien.

After the dues were cleared and Entry No. 2395 recorded the release of the lien, the Deputy Collector nevertheless rejected the petitioners’ appeal on the additional ground that prior permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act had not been obtained.

The Collector and Special Secretary (Appeals) upheld that decision.

The petitioners challenged the orders, including on the grounds that the Section 63 issue had not been raised before the Circle Officer and that they had received no opportunity to respond.

Section 135D(8) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code permits a certifying officer to refuse certification where the officer has reason to believe that a mutation entry contravenes the Code or another law, and requires the officer to give the person concerned written reasons.

The provision applies where the acquisition of the right sought to be recorded is contrary to law and the resulting entry would therefore violate the relevant enactment.

Under Section 70 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the Mamlatdar is empowered to examine whether a person is an agriculturist.

The Circle Officer’s recorded reason for cancelling Entry No. 2391 was the subsisting Cooperative Society lien; the alleged Section 63 breach was not the basis of that decision.

Once the lien was cleared and recorded, the higher authorities could not sustain the cancellation by introducing a new ground without the petitioners having had an opportunity to address it.

The Court further held that the question whether a person is an agriculturist falls within the statutory function assigned to the Mamlatdar under Section 70, and therefore the authorities’ reliance on the alleged Section 63 breach in these proceedings was legally unsustainable.

It directed the revenue authorities to restore Entry No. 2391, made pursuant to the registered sale deed, in respect of the disputed land.