Military Personnel Deemed to Cultivate Personally Despite Delayed Revenue Entry and Absence of Local Residence

The petitioner, a military serviceman, was allotted 10 acres of "Santhani New Tenure" land in Village Vadali, Rajkot, on 29.08.1974

Possession was handed over to his Power of Attorney (POA) as he was on active duty, and a Sanad was issued on 06.02.1975

Although the land was cultivated, revenue entries were only mutated in Village Form No. 6 (Entry No. 1218) in April 2000

On 17.06.2002, the Mamlatdar passed an order converting the land from new to old tenure after verifying continuous cultivation and payment of outstanding revenue

However, the Collector, Rajkot, initiated suo motu revision proceedings in 2004, questioning the 26-year delay in mutation and alleging breach of allotment conditions

The Collector cancelled Entry No. 1218 on 21.03.2006, a decision upheld by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) on 26.12.2013

The petitioner challenged these orders, citing lack of notice and misplacement of files at the SSRD office as reasons for the delay in filing the writ

1. Whether the revenue authorities justified the cancellation of the mutation entry based on a 26-year delay and alleged breach of self-cultivation conditions

2. Whether a member of the Armed Forces can be penalized for cultivating land through a Power of Attorney or servants under the relevant land laws

Section 2(11) of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951, which defines "cultivate personally." Section 2(11), Explanation I specifically provides that a member of the Armed Forces is deemed to cultivate land personally even if it is cultivated by servants or hired labor

Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules regarding the Collector's revisionary powers and the procedural requirements for certifying entries under Section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code

The Court reasoned that the initial onus to mutate the name post-allotment lay with the respondent authorities

The Mamlatdar’s 2002 order had already established as a finding of fact that the petitioner had been in continuous possession and cultivation for 15 years and had paid all outstanding land revenue

The Collector’s show-cause notice and subsequent order were found to be based on "suspicion" regarding the procedural delay rather than evidence of actual breach of conditions

Crucially, the Court held that under Section 2(11) of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, the petitioner’s status as a military man legally permitted him to cultivate through others; thus, the use of a POA or servants did not constitute a breach of the "self-cultivation" condition

Therefore, the Collector and SSRD exceeded their jurisdiction by cancelling an entry while the original allotment remained intact and no actual breach was proven

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the orders of the Collector (21.03.2006) and the SSRD (26.12.2013). The Court directed that the mutation entry No. 1218 be restored, as the cancellation was in excess of the show-cause notice and contrary to statutory exemptions provided to Armed Forces personnel. Rule made absolute.