Revenue mutation challenges become infructuous once civil court decrees finally settle title, possession, and sale-deed validity.

The petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Special Secretary, Revenue Department’s common order dated 20 July 2016 concerning mutation Entry No. 2588 relating to partition and Entry No. 2700 relating to a sale deed.

In respect of Entry No. 2588, the Mamlatdar, Deesa rejected the petitioners’ RTS Application No. 41 of 2010 and confirmed the entry on 15 June 2010.

The Deputy Collector set aside that decision on 18 December 2010, and the Collector, Banaskantha affirmed the Deputy Collector’s order on 6 November 2012.

Subsequently, Regular Civil Suit No. 56 of 2011, filed by respondent No. 1 for cancellation of the sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction, was decreed on 28 March 2025.

The sale deed dated 20 May 2011 executed in favour of petitioner No. 8 was cancelled, and petitioner No. 8 was held not to have acquired any right, title or interest under it.

Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 2017, filed by petitioner No. 8 for restoration of possession, was dismissed on 30 April 2024.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the revenue proceedings.

It applied the principle that mutation and revenue entries are consequential to, and must yield to, the adjudication of substantive civil rights by a competent Civil Court.

The Court accepted the Special Secretary’s determination that the decisions in the civil suits would bind the parties.

Once the civil court decrees determining title, possession and the validity of the sale deed attain finality, the revenue authorities and the parties are bound by those determinations, and a pending challenge to consequential revenue orders may become infructuous.

The Court noted that the civil litigation had conclusively addressed the substantive disputes underlying the mutation entries.

Regular Civil Suit No. 56 of 2011 resulted in cancellation of the sale deed and a finding that petitioner No. 8 acquired no right, title or interest under it, while Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 2017 seeking restoration of possession was dismissed.

Since the petitioners were unable to show that these decrees had been challenged in First Appeals, the Court treated the questions of title and possession as having attained finality.

Consequently, regardless of the earlier revenue orders concerning Entries Nos. 2588 and 2700, no effective relief could be granted in the petitions under Article 227.

The subsequent civil court adjudication therefore rendered the petitions infructuous.

Both Special Civil Applications were accordingly disposed of, the Rule was discharged, and no substantive relief was granted against the impugned revenue order.

The Court clarified that if the petitioners had filed First Appeals against the civil court judgments and decrees, the decisions in those appeals would bind both parties, subject to any further challenge.