Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate transaction validity under other statutes in mutation proceedings.

The land bearing Survey No. 129 at Isanpur, Ahmedabad, was granted non-agricultural (“N.A.”) permission by the Inamdar, Shah Alam Estate, on 29 August 1969, followed by construction permission from the Isanpur Gram Panchayat on 19 October 1974

Respondent No. 5, the original owner, agreed to sell the property to Respondent No. 6 in 1993 and executed a registered sale deed on 15 December 2003; mutation Entry No. 6041 was thereafter made in favour of Respondent No. 6

Respondent No. 6 subsequently sold the property to the petitioners through a registered sale deed dated 19 March 2011, resulting in mutation Entries Nos. 6357 and 6358 on 8 July 2011

Respondent No. 5 challenged the petitioners’ mutation entries, alleging that agricultural land had been transferred to a non-agriculturist without the requisite permission under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The City Mamlatdar upheld the objection; the City Deputy Collector initially allowed the petitioners’ appeal, but the Collector reversed that position and restored the Mamlatdar’s order. The Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, dismissed the petitioners’ revision on 14 August 2017

During the writ proceedings, Respondent No. 5 filed an affidavit recording settlement and stated that he had no objection to restoration of the petitioners’ entries

Whether the revenue authorities, in mutation/Record of Rights (“RTS”) proceedings, could determine the validity of the sale transactions on the ground of an alleged breach of Sections 63 and 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

Whether the property, having been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use pursuant to the 1969 permission and subsequent construction permission, remained subject to restrictions applicable to agricultural land

Whether the challenge to the 2003 sale and the consequential mutation proceedings, initiated after approximately eight years, were barred by undue and unreasonable delay

Whether the Collector’s and Special Secretary’s orders rejecting the petitioners’ claim to mutation entries warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The Court applied the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, particularly the provisions governing mutation and Record of Rights, including Sections 135C, 135D, 135J and 135L, under which RTS authorities have limited fiscal jurisdiction to examine the correctness of revenue entries and cannot adjudicate the substantive validity of a transaction under another enactment

It relied on Janardan D. Patel v. State of Gujarat , 1996 (0) AIJEL-HC 205413, holding that an alleged breach of Section 63 of the Bombay/Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act must be decided by the authority empowered under the Tenancy Act, not in RTS proceedings

Relying on State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha , 10 GLR 992, and the principles reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Hussainbhai Satarbhai Meman , 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 249387, the Court held that statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time, assessed in light of the facts and circumstances of each case

The Court also applied the principle that a vendor who has voluntarily executed the sale deed and received consideration cannot subsequently take advantage of his own alleged statutory violation, as discussed in Narendrabhai Maganbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat , 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 240085

The Court found that the 1969 N.A. permission, the 1974 construction permission and the corresponding revenue record established that the land had been converted for non-agricultural use before both the 2003 and 2011 sales

Consequently, the restrictions applicable to agricultural land and transfers to non-agriculturists could not, on the facts found, invalidate the transactions.

In any event, the revenue authorities exercising RTS jurisdiction could not themselves decide whether the sale violated Sections 63 and 84C of the Tenancy Act; that question had to be placed before the competent authority under that legislation

The Court further held that Respondent No. 5, having executed the 2003 registered sale deed after expressly referring to the property’s N.A. status and having accepted the sale consideration, could not challenge the transaction years later on an inconsistent basis

The challenge was initiated approximately eight years after the first sale and was therefore unreasonably delayed under the principles in Patel Raghav Natha

These factors, together with Respondent No. 5’s subsequent settlement and absence of objection, rendered the Collector’s and Special Secretary’s orders unsustainable

It quashed and set aside the Special Secretary’s order dated 14 August 2017 and the Collector’s order dated 15 November 2013 in Revision Application No. 76 of 2013

The Court restored and confirmed the City Deputy Collector’s order dated 21 January 2013 insofar as it concerned the petitioners, thereby sustaining mutation Entries Nos. 6357 and 6358.

The Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs