Revenue Authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate legality of transactions under other enactments during RTS proceedings.

The petitioner, belonging to the Maldhari-Charan community, purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 392 paiki 5 in Jamnagar via a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2019.

A mutation entry (No. 2548) was recorded based on this deed; however, the Mamlatdar rejected the certification on 24.09.2019, questioning the petitioner’s status as an agriculturist.

The petitioner contended she held other agricultural lands and that her late husband was a certified Maldhari, a category included in the definition of 'agriculturist' under Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance.

The rejection was upheld by the Deputy Collector (18.02.2020), the District Collector (18.10.2021), and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) on 14.12.2022. The petitioner challenged these concurrent orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning the validity of a transaction or the status of a party while performing fiscal mutation duties under the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules.

2. Whether the authorities were mandated under Section 135C of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code to mutate the entry based on a registered sale deed.

Section 135C of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which exempts persons acquiring rights via registered documents from reporting requirements and implies an obligation for authorities to record such rights.

The principle from Evergreen Apartment Co-Op. Housing Society v. Special Secretary (Appeals) (1991), which establishes that revenue (RTS) proceedings are fiscal in nature and authorities cannot cancel entries by assuming breaches of other specific enactments like the Tenancy Act without following the procedure prescribed in those specific laws.

Radheshyam Developers v. Official Liquidator (2011) to reiterate that revenue authorities cannot dispute the validity of a transaction in RTS proceedings.

The court found that the respondent authorities committed a "gross-utilization of powers" by venturing into the petitioner’s status as an agriculturist during a summary mutation proceeding.

It reasoned that under Section 135C, the existence of a registered sale deed creates a duty for the revenue department to post the entry.

The court noted that the Mamlatdar and appellate authorities improperly used Rule 108 (RTS proceedings) to adjudicate substantive legal statuses—such as whether the petitioner’s husband was an agriculturist—which is a power reserved for competent authorities under the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, not the Revenue Code.

The court also highlighted that the petitioner had provided sufficient evidence of her status, including a certificate and revenue records (Village Forms 7 and 12) showing her possession of other agricultural lands, which the authorities failed to appreciate.

The court quashed the orders of the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector, Collector, and SSRD and directed Respondent No. 4 (Mamlatdar) to mutate the entry based on the registered sale deed dated 29.06.2019 within eight weeks. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.