Revenue entries based on a Will cannot delete names of other co-owners of ancestral property.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 7 are brothers and co-sharers of ancestral agricultural land in Mouje Rahiyad, Bharuch

Their uncle, Kanjibhai Shivabhai, executed a registered Will in 2004 bequeathing only his undivided share in the property to Respondent No. 7

In 2007, while mutating Entry No. 3433 to give effect to this Will, the revenue authorities erroneously deleted the names of the petitioner and other co-sharers, recording Respondent No. 7 as the sole owner

The petitioner discovered this error in 2010 after Respondent No. 7 received the entire compensation for land acquired by the Government

The Deputy Collector and Collector both ruled in favor of the petitioner, restoring the names of the co-sharers

However, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), set aside these orders in revision, primarily on the ground of a four-year delay in filing the appeal

1. Whether the revenue authority erred in deleting the names of co-owners from the record of rights while giving effect to a Will that only bequeathed an undivided share

2. Whether the delay of four years in challenging the mutation entry was fatal to the petitioner’s case given the circumstances of the discovery of the error

Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, specifically Rule 108, governing mutation entries and appeals

Mutation entries in the record of rights must strictly reflect the legal devolution of interest; a registered Will seeking to transfer an undivided share cannot be interpreted to extinguish the rights of other undisputed co-sharers/coparceners

Doctrine of "reasonable period" for challenging revenue entries, holding that delay can be condoned if sufficiently explained by the timing of the discovery of an error

The Court examined the recitals of the Will and found that the testator intended to transfer only his specific undivided share to Respondent No. 7

The Court noted that the petitioner and other co-sharers had provided no-objection statements only regarding the transfer of the uncle’s share, not their own

The Court reasoned that the revenue officer committed a factual and legal error by interpreting the Will as a total transfer of ownership, thereby deleting the names of the other legal heirs

Regarding the issue of delay, the Court observed that the petitioner’s silence for four years was justified because he only realized his name had been deleted when the land compensation was disbursed exclusively to Respondent No. 7

The SSRD’s interference was deemed improper as it focused on technical delay while ignoring the substantive misinterpretation of the registered Will and the violation of the co-sharers' rights

The Court directed that Mutation Entry No. 3433 be modified so that the petitioner remains a co-owner along with Respondent No. 7 for the remaining land (Survey No. 758), ensuring the revenue record accurately reflects the undivided share bequeathed via the Will without extinguishing the rights of other heirs. Rule made absolute