Mutation Entry Certified in Revenue Records Based on Consent Terms and Settlement of Civil Suit

The petitioners challenged a series of revenue orders, culminating in an order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Special Secretary (Respondent No. 1), which rejected their Revision Application.

The lower revenue authorities (Deputy Collector and Collector) had previously declined to certify Mutation Entry No. 10166, which was based on a registered sale deed dated 08.08.2011.

The Special Secretary’s rejection was primarily based on the pendency of a civil dispute, namely Regular Civil Suit No. 656 of 2011, between the parties regarding the same land.

During the pendency of this High Court petition, the parties settled their disputes and filed consent terms before the 23rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, leading to the disposal of the civil suit on 25.03.2026.

1. Whether the impugned revenue orders refusing to certify Mutation Entry No. 10166 should be set aside in light of the subsequent settlement of the underlying civil dispute between the parties.

The court applied the principle that revenue records should reflect the current legal status of land ownership as determined by competent authorities or mutual settlements between parties.

When a civil suit—which formed the basis for a 'wait and watch' approach by revenue authorities—is resolved through a consent decree, the revenue entries must be updated to align with such settlement.

The court acted under its extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure revenue records are brought in line with the concluded registered sale deed and the subsequent civil court settlement.

The Court noted that the primary justification for the Special Secretary’s refusal to interfere was the outcome of the pending civil litigation.

Counsel for both sides presented evidence, including affidavits-in-reply from the respondents, confirming that the parties had settled their disputes outside the court and executed consent terms.

Respondent No. 5.1 filed an affidavit stating she had no objection to the certification of the mutation entry provided the parties adhered to the consent terms.

Since the Civil Court had already disposed of the suit based on these terms, the Court found that the legal hurdle preventing the certification of Mutation Entry No. 10166 no longer existed.

The Court directed the relevant authorities to certify Mutation Entry No. 10166 in the revenue records within eight weeks from the receipt of the order, following the due procedure under the Code.