Revenue mutation entries alone cannot confer new-tenure status absent a valid underlying order.

The dispute concerned land bearing Revenue Survey No. 85 of Village Ghatlodia, admeasuring approximately 7,386 sq. metres.

The respondents, claiming to be the original owners/occupants, sought a declaration that the land was of old/unrestricted tenure and that the entry describing it as new-tenure land should be removed.

The application made before the City Deputy Collector on 4 September 1996 was rejected on 12 December 1996; the Collector dismissed the respondents’ appeal on 3 April 1997.

In revision, the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, entertained the respondents’ claim by relying on the decision in an identically situated matter, Bhikaji Maganji Thakore v. State of Gujarat , Special Civil Application No. 7878 of 1996, decided on 4 February 1997.

The State thereafter invoked Article 226 challenging the revisional order dated 24 February 1999.

Whether the Special Secretary (Appeals) was justified in entertaining the respondents’ revision and treating the land as old-tenure land by relying on the binding decision in an identically situated matter.

Whether the revenue entry describing Survey No. 85 as new-tenure land could stand in the absence of any supporting order or lawful basis for such classification.

The Court relied on Sections 135-H and 135-J of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, concerning the evidentiary and continuing effect of entries in revenue records until they are substituted by a valid entry.

It applied the principle that a revenue entry describing land as new-tenure land cannot confer or establish new-tenure status where no valid order or legal basis supports that classification.

The Court also followed Bhikaji Maganji Thakore v. State of Gujarat , Special Civil Application No. 7878 of 1996, in which the Court directed deletion of an unsupported new-tenure notation and required the land to be treated as old-tenure land; that decision had been affirmed by the Division Bench and had attained finality.

The Court found that Survey No. 85 had been allotted to different stakeholders in 1956 and that Mutation Entry No. 809 described the land as new-tenure land, but no underlying order establishing such tenure was shown.

The City Deputy Collector and Collector had rejected the respondents’ claim without displacing the reasoning applicable to the identically situated land considered in Bhikaji Maganji Thakore .

Since that precedent had been affirmed by the Division Bench and was not challenged before the Supreme Court, the Special Secretary was justified in relying upon it while deciding the revision.

Applying the principle that an unsupported revenue entry cannot sustain a new-tenure classification, the Court held that there was no sufficient basis to interfere with the revisional order.

It held that the Special Secretary (Appeals) had committed no error in entertaining the revision and in relying upon the final decision concerning similarly situated land.

The petition challenging the order dated 24 February 1999 was dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was made.