Powers under Revenue Rules cannot be exercised to adjudicate statutory breaches or unsettle long-standing entries after inordinate delay.

The petitioner purchased agricultural land (Survey No. 86) in Zarapara, Kutch, via a registered sale deed dated 29.06.1984.

Historically, the land stood in the name of Mandan Samat in 1954-55, but was mistakenly recorded as belonging to a Temple Trust (Mata no Madh) under Entry No. 298.

This error was rectified in 1967 (Entry No. 1367) after a formal inquiry by revenue authorities, restoring ownership to Mandan Samat.

Decades later, when the petitioner applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) conversion in 2012, the District Collector, Kutch, issued a show-cause notice dated 09.04.2013.

The Collector cancelled the historical revenue entries (Nos. 1367, 1705, and 4084) on the grounds that the land belonged to a trust and was transferred without prior permission, citing a Government Circular dated 09.04.2010.

The Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), upheld this decision on 19.08.2016.

The Court applied the principle that suo motu revisional powers, even where no limitation is prescribed by statute, must be exercised within a "reasonable period" to prevent unsettling long-standing rights, as established in Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya v. State of Gujarat (2013).

It further relied on Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Special Secretary, Revenue Department (1991), which mandates that RTS (Record of Rights) proceedings are primarily for fiscal purposes and revenue authorities cannot cancel entries based on alleged breaches of other special enactments without following the specific procedures of those statutes.

The Court reasoned that the initial rectification of the revenue record in 1967 was done after a proper inquiry and had attained finality as it was never challenged by the alleged Temple Trust or the State for over four decades.

The Court found the Collector’s reliance on the Government Circular dated 09.04.2010 to be "legally unsustainable" because the circular’s territorial jurisdiction is limited to Saurashtra and does not extend to Kutch.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the office of the Charity Commissioner had no record of the land belonging to the purported trust.

Applying the Evergreen Apartment doctrine, the Court held that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by using RTS proceedings to adjudicate substantive title disputes and alleged trust-law violations after a delay of 43 years, which is far beyond a "reasonable period".

It held that the initiation of proceedings after 43 years was legally unsustainable and that the applicable circular was misapplied.

The Court ordered the restoration of Mutation Entry Nos. 1367, 1705, and 4084, confirming the petitioner’s rights based on the 1984 registered sale deed.