Married daughter retains agriculturist status despite fraudulent deletion from land records; 19-year-old revenue action quashed

Bavalal Jadavji’s agricultural land was divided among his three sons, including Nathalal, the father of petitioner no.1. After Nathalal’s death, petitioner no.1 claimed that she and her brother were his legal heirs, but her name was allegedly excluded from the revenue record through a false pedigree and forged Kabulatnama, resulting in Entry No.654 dated 9 October 1967 being recorded solely in her brother’s favour.

In 1989, the Talati-cum-Mantri issued a certificate recording that petitioner no.1 was the sister of an agriculturist, namely her brother. Relying on that certificate, she purchased three parcels of agricultural land through registered sale deeds dated 17 April 1990, pursuant to which Entry Nos.4864, 4865 and 4866 were mutated and certified after issuance of notices under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

In 2008–2009, third parties sought cancellation of the entries on the ground that petitioner no.1 was not an agriculturist and had violated Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement & Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (“Ordinance”).

By order dated 19 August 2016, the Collector cancelled Entry Nos.4864–4866 and imposed costs of Rs.50,79,744/-.

Whether petitioner no.1 retained the status of an “agriculturist” despite her marriage, the deletion of her name from the revenue record, and the alleged fraudulent mutation of Entry No.654.

Whether suo motu proceedings initiated approximately nineteen years after mutation and certification of the impugned entries were barred for being initiated beyond a reasonable period.

Whether proceedings initiated at the instance of a third party who had no legal interest in the impugned mutation entries were maintainable.

Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, particularly where the impugned order was alleged to be without jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles of law.

Whether reliance on a statutory amendment after conclusion of the hearing, without affording the petitioners an opportunity to address its applicability, vitiated the impugned order.

The Court applied Sections 54 and 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement & Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, concerning prohibited transfers and consequential action against transfers in breach of the Ordinance.

It applied the principle that suo motu or revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable period even where the statute prescribes no limitation, relying on State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1969) 2 SCC 187, Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew, (2005) 7 SCC 667, Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodariya v. State of Gujarat, 2013 (2) GLR 1788, and State of Gujarat v. Hussainbhai Satarbhai Memon, 2024 (4) GLH 410.

The Court further relied on Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (3) GLR 1852, for the proposition that even an allegedly void transaction cannot ordinarily be annulled after it has remained effective for a considerable period.

Under Kankuben J. Bharwad v. State of Gujarat, 2006 (3) GLH 659, and Babiben Rikhavchand Doshi v. Deputy Collector, 1986 GLH 845, a woman does not lose her status as an agriculturist merely because she marries a non-agriculturist; her lawful interest in ancestral agricultural land and her status by birth continue.

The Court also applied the “aggrieved person” doctrine from Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465, A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616, and Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387.

Finally, under Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar where proceedings are without jurisdiction or violate principles of natural justice.

The Court held that petitioner no.1 was the daughter and legal heir of an agriculturist and that her agricultural status could not be extinguished merely because her name was allegedly removed from the revenue record through fraud or because she had married.

Her claim was supported by the ancestral character of the land, the pending proceedings challenging Entry No.654, and the Talati-cum-Mantri’s certificate issued before the 1990 purchases.

The Court further found that the impugned entries had been mutated on the basis of registered sale deeds in 1990 and had remained effective for approximately nineteen years before the Collector initiated suo motu proceedings.

Applying the reasonable-time doctrine, the Court concluded that such belated action unlawfully unsettled a long-standing transaction.

It also held that the third-party complainant had not demonstrated any legal injury or proprietary interest in the impugned entries and therefore could not properly invoke the revenue jurisdiction.

The availability of an alternative remedy did not prevent writ intervention because the Collector’s action was challenged as jurisdictionally impermissible and the order relied on a statutory amendment introduced after the hearing had concluded without giving the petitioners an opportunity to address it.

It directed that the three entries, which were based on the registered sale deeds dated 17 April 1990, be restored in the revenue record.

The Rule was made absolute to that extent, with direct service permitted.