### Suo Motu Exercise of Revisional Powers After Decades Without Challenging Registered Sale Deeds Is Legally Impermissible

In brief

The question

1. Whether the revenue authorities can exercise suo motu revisional powers after an inordinate delay of 57 years

The court held

The court answered that the 57-year delay was unreasonable and the exercise of power was improper

It also directed

The court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the orders of the Collector (21.07.2016) and the SSRD (31.07.2017), and ordered the restoration of Mutation Entry Nos. 331 and 493 in the revenue records. Rule was made absolute

01Facts

The subject land (Revenue Survey No. 54, Village Chamaradi) was originally held by Shri Bava Haridas Karsandas as a Barkhalidar

p. 2

In 1959, Karsandas sold the land via registered sale deed to Vora Ghanibhai Remanbhai; Mutation Entry No. 331 was certified in 1966

p. 2

In 1977, the land was sold to the petitioners’ father via registered sale deed, and Entry No. 493 was certified

p. 3

In 2015—57 years after the first transaction—the Collector issued a suo motu show cause notice under Rule 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code

p. 3

The Collector cancelled the entries on July 21, 2016, citing a 2010 Government Resolution (GR) prohibiting administrators of religious trusts from alienating trust property

pp. 3-4

This was upheld by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (SSRD) on July 31, 2017

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the revenue authorities can exercise suo motu revisional powers after an inordinate delay of 57 years

p. 5

ii.2. Whether a Government Resolution from 2010 can be applied retrospectively to invalidate transactions concluded decades prior

p. 6

iii.3. Whether revenue entries based on registered sale deeds can be cancelled without a challenge to the validity of the sale deeds in a competent civil court

p. 6, 12

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied the principle established in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187, which mandates that statutory powers must be exercised within a "reasonable time" even if no limitation period is prescribed

p. 5, 11

It further relied on Mustufakhan R. Pathan v. State of Gujarat (2016) 3 GLR 2649, affirming that unexplained delays of several years render revisional orders legally unsustainable

pp. 11-12

The court also invoked Section 135J of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which creates a legal presumption of correctness for certified mutation entries

p. 7, 13

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Bombay Land Revenue Code Section 135J

Code Section 211

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that the initiation of suo motu proceedings after 57 years is arbitrary and lacks jurisdiction

p. 5, 11

It found the State’s argument—that the clock starts only when the "nullity" of the transaction is discovered—unacceptable because the revenue records had been scrutinized during six different promulgations over the decades without objection

p. 11

Furthermore, a 2010 Government Resolution cannot retroactively invalidate a 1959 sale

p. 6, 10

Most crucially, the court observed that revenue authorities cannot determine the validity of a registered sale deed; since the sale deeds were never challenged or set aside by a civil court, the revenue entries based on them must stand

p. 12

Under Section 135J, the petitioners were bona fide purchasers entitled to rely on the presumed correctness of the historic record

p. 13