Registration of Sale Deed Entry Cannot be Denied Based on Objections by Uninterested Third Parties

The petitioners challenged an order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the Deputy Collector in RTS Takrari Case No. 48 of 2025

Petitioner No. 1 sold property to Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 via a registered sale deed, leading to the registration of Entry No. 2784 in the revenue records

Respondent No. 3, a third party with no claimed right or interest in the property, objected to the entry

The Deputy Collector refused to certify the entry citing the pendency of a tenancy case and the third-party objection

1. Whether a revenue authority can refuse to mutate an entry based on a registered sale deed due to objections from a third party who has no interest in the land

2. Whether the pendency of collateral proceedings justifies the refusal to certify a mutation entry arising from a registered document

Section 135-C and Section 135-D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and Rule 108(1) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules

Precedent set in 2014(0)GLHEL-HC-23255, which mandates that for land purchased via a registered sale deed, the revenue officer must mutate the claimant’s name, as there is a legal presumption in favor of registered documents

Interpretation provided in 2024(0) AIJEL-HC 247962, clarifying that the term "any person" in Section 135-D(3) refers only to "persons interested" or "concerned persons" having a legal interest in the mutation, not any random individual

The Court reasoned that under Section 135-D, the designated officer lacks the jurisdiction to disregard the legal effect of a registered sale deed

The sale was between two agriculturists, and the registered deed created a statutory obligation on the authority to update the record

The Court found that Respondent No. 3 was a "third person" with no right, title, or interest in the subject property

Following the Apex Court’s interpretation of Section 135-D, the Court held that objections from such disinterested parties are legally insufficient to block a mutation

Since the Mamlatdar's prior related order had already been quashed in a separate proceeding (SCA No. 17576 of 2024), the Deputy Collector's reliance on pending cases was misplaced

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Deputy Collector's order dated 05.05.2025. The respondent authorities were directed to certify Entry No. 2784 in the revenue records within three months. Rule was made absolute