Mutation entries based on a Will are subject to statutory restrictions under the Tenancy Act.

The appellant sought mutation of revenue records based on a registered Will dated 14.09.2004.

The revenue authorities rejected the application, finding that the transfer via Will violated Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Subsequently, the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.01.2020.

The appellant filed an application to condone a delay of 2048 days in seeking a recall of that dismissal, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification.

The learned Single Judge rejected the delay condonation application on 13.02.2026. The appellant challenged both the refusal to condone delay and the original dismissal of the writ petition in this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the delay of 2048 days in filing the recall application was sufficiently explained so as to warrant interference with the order of the learned Single Judge

2. Whether the revenue authorities correctly refused mutation on the grounds that a transfer by Will is hit by Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

The court applied the principles of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, specifically Section 63, which restricts the transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturists, and Section 84C, which pertains to the consequences of invalid transfers.

It further adhered to the principle that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not finally determine substantive rights or title, which must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or through substantive statutory proceedings.

The Court observed that while the appellant cited the COVID-19 pandemic, the delay was an extraordinary 2048 days.

To determine if justice required reopening the case, the Court examined the underlying merits. It noted that the revenue authorities had already rendered a categorical finding that the transfer via Will was hit by the statutory bar under Section 63 of the Tenancy Act.

The Court found that substantive proceedings regarding the validity of the transfer under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act are currently pending, as is a Civil Suit for declaration of rights based on the same Will.

Given that mutation entries are summary and do not override substantive statutory bars or pending civil litigation, the Court reasoned there was no justification to interfere with the Single Judge's refusal to restore the writ petition.

However, the Court clarified that the observations made in the summary mutation proceedings shall not prejudice the appellant in the pending substantive proceedings under Section 84C or the pending Civil Suit, which must be decided independently. All connected applications were disposed of accordingly.