Revenue authorities cannot cancel mutation entries based on registered sale deeds absent civil-court annulment.

The land bearing Survey No. 126, Village Fatehgarh, Taluka Rapar, District Kutch, originally belonged to Virabhai Kuniya. Pursuant to proceedings under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 17 acres were declared surplus and Entry No. 1761 was mutated in 1980.

By order dated 16 September 1981, the land was allotted to Dala Punja, possession was handed over to him, and Entry No. 1952 was mutated and certified in 1983.

After Dala Punja’s death, succession Entry No. 7993 was mutated in favour of his heir, Kesarbhai Dala Punja, in 2005.

On 22 May 2007, the petitioner purchased the land from Kesarbhai through a registered sale deed after paying the full consideration. Entry No. 8252 was consequently mutated in her favour and certified on 3 February 2008.

During subsequent promulgation proceedings, Entry No. 8426 was made on 17 November 2008, recording that “new tenure under Ceiling Act may be added” in the second-rights column.

The heirs of the original owner challenged Entry No. 8252 under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. The Deputy Collector cancelled the entry by order dated 7 September 2009 and directed initiation of proceedings against the Circle Officer for recording the entry without examining the title.

The Collector dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 13 April 2012 and directed initiation of proceedings under Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

The Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 26 June 2013.

The petitioner challenged all three orders under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought restoration of Entry No. 8252.

1. Whether the revenue authorities could cancel Entry No. 8252, which was based on a registered sale deed, when the sale deed had not been annulled or set aside by a competent civil court?

2. Whether the land was required to be treated as new and impartible tenure land, requiring prior permission for transfer, despite the relevant pre-sale revenue records not recording such restriction?

3. Whether the challenge to the petitioner’s entry was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and want of locus on the part of the heirs of the original landowner?

4. Whether the revenue authorities exceeded or improperly exercised their jurisdiction by directing initiation of proceedings under Section 79A of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code while deciding the RTS proceedings?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, and Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules governing revenue-entry disputes.

It relied on the principle that revenue authorities must mutate an entry on the basis of a registered document and cannot effectively invalidate the underlying transaction unless the competent civil court annuls or sets aside the registered document, as held in Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel through POA Holder Ashok J. Patel v. Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel & Ors., 2005 (3) GLH 657.

Under Kalumiya Dalumiya v. State of Gujarat, 2001 (1) GLH (UJ) 5, in the absence of material showing that land was designated as new-tenure land, action for breach of tenure conditions could not be taken merely on that assumption.

The Court also considered the principle in Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, 1991 (1) GLR 113, that revisional revenue authorities must remain within the jurisdiction conferred by the relevant enactment and cannot use RTS proceedings to adjudicate matters falling under distinct statutory provisions.

The Court further relied on Government Resolutions dated 4 July 2008, 17 March 2017, and 8 April 2025 concerning conversion or regularisation of restricted/new-tenure land, including treatment as old-tenure land after continuous agricultural possession and exemption from premium in specified cases.

The Court found that, before the petitioner’s purchase, the revenue records did not describe the land as “new and impartible tenure” land or otherwise disclose a transfer restriction; rather, the records either treated the land as old tenure or did not record the tenure restriction at all.

The petitioner had purchased the land under a registered sale deed for full consideration after verifying the available revenue records, and Entry No. 8252 had thereafter been duly mutated and certified.

Since the registered sale deed had not been challenged or annulled in civil proceedings, the revenue authorities were required to give effect to it for mutation purposes and could not cancel the consequential entry merely by questioning the transaction in RTS proceedings.

The Court also held that the later promulgation entry referring to possible new-tenure status could not retrospectively prejudice a transaction already completed and recorded before that entry.

Although the challenge to Entry No. 8252 itself was made within approximately two years, the heirs had not challenged the original 1980 surplus-land entry or the subsequent allotment and succession entries for several years; this weakened their claim and locus concerning the petitioner’s registered transaction.

Continuous possession and agricultural use from 1981 to 2007 also supported the petitioner’s reliance on the 4 July 2008 Government Resolution concerning old-tenure treatment.

The Court nevertheless held that the authorities had not exceeded jurisdiction merely by directing initiation of separate proceedings under Section 79A, since appropriate statutory proceedings could be initiated if alleged lapses were disclosed during the RTS proceedings.

On the cumulative facts, however, cancellation of Entry No. 8252 was held unsustainable.

It directed that Entry No. 8252 be restored in the revenue record.

The Rule was made absolute to that extent, and direct service was permitted.