Revenue revisional authorities cannot reopen finally condoned delay or disregard uncontroverted findings invalidating a mutation entry.

Hirabhai Mavabhai Patel purchased agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 115 Paiki 7 by a registered sale deed dated 29 May 1967, pursuant to which Revenue Entry No. 175 was recorded in his name.

Entry No. 507 was subsequently posted on 1 May 1996, recording a 50% share in favour of respondent No. 5, a family member.

After Hirabhai’s death on 8 October 2012, the petitioners challenged Entry No. 507 before the Deputy Collector along with an application for condonation of delay.

The delay was condoned by the Deputy Collector and that decision was affirmed by the Collector on 27 July 2015; respondent No. 5 did not further challenge the decision, resulting in its finality.

On merits, the Deputy Collector cancelled Entry No. 507, finding that Hirabhai’s statement had not been recorded and that there was no signature or consent from him supporting the transfer of a 50% share.

The Collector affirmed that decision on 24 July 2017.

In revision, however, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, allowed respondent No. 5’s challenge on 27 December 2018, principally relying on delay and the pendency of a civil suit, and restored Entry No. 507.

The petitioners challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Special Secretary was justified in upholding Entry No. 507 despite the concurrent findings that Hirabhai’s statement, signature, or consent supporting the recording of a 50% share had never been obtained.

Whether the Special Secretary could reopen and reject the challenge to Entry No. 507 on limitation grounds after the delay had already been condoned and that decision had attained finality.

Whether reliance on the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 54 of 2017 justified interference with the orders cancelling Entry No. 507, when that suit did not concern the land in question.

The Court exercised judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It applied the settled principle that a mutation or revenue entry is primarily fiscal in nature and neither creates nor extinguishes title; the civil court remains competent to determine the underlying proprietary rights, as reaffirmed in Jamnabai v. Vasudev, 2026 INSC 900, relying on Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223.

Revenue authorities must nevertheless follow the prescribed procedure while recording mutation entries and must give cogent reasons when disturbing concurrent factual findings.

The Court further applied the principle of finality of an adjudicated procedural issue: once the competent revenue authorities had condoned the delay and that decision was not challenged, the issue could not be reopened in a subsequent revision.

A decision based on an irrelevant or factually inapplicable pending proceeding constitutes non-application of mind.

The Court held that the Special Secretary failed to address the material concurrent findings of the Deputy Collector and Collector that there was no statement, signature, or consent of Hirabhai supporting the recording of respondent No. 5’s 50% share.

Reliance on statements of panchas and other persons suggesting a family settlement could not, without first dealing with those findings, sustain a mutation affecting the revenue record of land purchased exclusively by Hirabhai.

Since Entry No. 507 could not itself confer title, its procedural validity still had to be examined, and the Special Secretary’s failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable.

The Special Secretary also erred in reconsidering limitation because the delay had already been condoned by the Deputy Collector and affirmed by the Collector, without any further challenge by respondent No. 5.

Finally, the reliance on Regular Civil Suit No. 54 of 2017 was misplaced because that suit did not relate to the land in dispute.

The petition was allowed; the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the orders of the Deputy Collector and Collector cancelling Entry No. 507 were restored.

The Court clarified that the final outcome of Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 2017, which concerned the parties’ rights in the land, would bind all parties, and that the revenue authorities must modify the revenue record if required in accordance with that final outcome.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.