Gujarat High Court
Bhaveshbhai Lavjibhai Savliya vs The Special Secretary (Appeals) on 27 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1605 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
BHAVESHBHAI LAVJIBHAI SAVLIYA
Versus
THE SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RM NAJMUDDIN R MEGHANI(7834) for the Petitioner No. 1
MS HIMANI SHAH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 27/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "Revenue Code" for short), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the respondent no.1 - Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/NARMADA/30/2016 and the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 - Collector in Land/Entry/ Review/ Case No.55/2013 and thereby prayed for restoration of Entry No.1395 dated 19.02.2007 as well as subsequent entries in the revenue record.
Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Vimal Purohit Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah for the respondent nos.1 to 4. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.5.
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Vimal Purohit referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the land bearing Survey No.283 situated in the sim of Village : Agar, Taluka : Tilakwada, District :
Narmada was originally belonging to one Rohit Dhanabhai Virabhai, who during his lifetime, had bequeathed "Will" in favour of his nephew i.e. the respondent no.5 herein as the Rohit Dhanabhai Virabhai was not having straight line legal heirs. He submitted that after sad demise of said Dhanabhai Rohit in the year 2007, Entry No.1395 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 19.02.2007 on the basis of the Will produced by the respondent no.5 herein and thereby, name of the respondent no.5 came to be mutated in the revenue record and the said entry was also certified on 04.04.2007 and thus, the name of the respondent no.5 was running in the revenue record.
He submitted that thereafter, the respondent no.5 herein had sold out the said land to one Parshottambhai Karshanbhai Desai by way of executing registered sale deed on 18.05.2010 and on the basis of the said registered sale deed, Entry No.1629 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 24.02.2011, which was subsequently certified on 04.05.2011. He submitted that Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined thereafter, the said Parshottambhai Karshanbhai Desai had sold out the said land to Rakeshbhai Kalubhai Dhameliya and Bharatbhai Bachubhai Dhameliya by way of executing registered sale deed and on the basis of the said sale deed, Entry No.1675 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 24.06.2011 and subsequently certified also on 01.08.2011. He submitted that thereafter the aforesaid persons have sold out the land to the petitioner herein by way of executing registered sale deed on 13.03.2012 and on the basis of the said registered sale deed, Entry No.1712 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 13.03.2012, which was subsequently certified on 18.04.2012 and, thereafter, the petitioner became to the absolute owner and occupier of the land in question. He submitted that in fact, the petitioner was earlier known as "Bhikhubhai" but he had changed his name from "Bhikhubhai" to "Bhaveshbhai", for which, necessary procedure was also followed by him including by publishing it in the Government Gazette and on the basis of said Government Gazette, he applied before the revenue authority for rectification of his name from "Bhikhubhai" to "Bhaveshbhai" and accordingly, Entry No.1747 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 29.01.2013. He submitted that however to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent - Collector had initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 108(6) of the Revenue Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined Code by taking Entry No.1395 dated 19.02.2007 into review and notice came to be issued and pursuant thereto, the responded no.5 had remained present and submitted his reply, however without properly considering the said reply, the respondent - Collector, by an order dated 09.05.2016, cancelled Entry No.1395 dated 19.02.2007 and the said order was challenged before the respondent - SSRD by filing revision application, however, the said revision application came to be rejected confirming the order of the respondent - Collector, therefore, present petition has been preferred.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Purohit submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question on payment of entire sale consideration, that too, by way of executing registered sale deed and at the time of execution of the said sale deed, he had verified all the revenue records and, thereafter, entered into sale transaction. He submitted that in fact, entry based on the registered sale deed was already mutated by the revenue authority and subsequently certified also, however when the entry for rectification of the name was tried to be mutated, suo motu proceedings have been initiated for the entry, which was mutated in the revenue record in the year 2007. He submitted that in fact, notice issued under Section 108(6) of the Revenue Code was not issued upon the petitioner but it was Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined issued upon the responded no.5, who had remained present before the authority concerned and submitted his reply but it was not considered and said entry was cancelled, which would affect the rights of the petitioner. He submitted that if the said notice would have been served upon the petitioner, in that event, he would have remained present and pointed out all above facts but in his absence, the said suo motu proceedings have been undertaken, therefore, there were defects at the hands of concerned revenue authority while initiating suo motu proceedings. He submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the respondent - Collector while cancelling Entry No.1395 mutated in favour of the respondent no.5, in that event, the respondent - Collector has give two reasons i.e. (1) "Will" is unregistered and the Probate Certificate was not obtained from the competent authority; and (2) the respondent no.5 has not produced proof as to whether the land in question belongs to private ownership of the deceased or it was ancestral property. He, however, submitted that those are the disputed questions of facts and law and it cannot be decided in revenue record and on the contrary, it can be decided in civil court, therefore, the revenue authority does not have jurisdiction to make such observation. He further submitted that the aforesaid observation is against the settled Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined law. In support of this submission, he has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Ramniklal (Ramanlal) Trikamji Sevak Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2013 LawSuit (Guj) 157 and submitted that in fact, there is no requirement of the probate certificate on the basis of the Will at the time of mutation of entry. He, therefore, submitted that cancellation of the entry on the aforesaid ground of non-obtaining of probate certificate is illegal and unjust, therefore, the impugned orders of the revenue authority are required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate, Mr. Purohit submitted that entry based on Will was mutated in the revenue record in the year 2007 in favour of the respondent no.5, who sold out the land in question to other and, thereafter number of sale transactions had taken place and as stated above, the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question and before execution of the said transaction, he had verified all revenue record. He submitted that admittedly, the entry was mutated in the year 2007, which has been taken into suo motu in the year 2013 and thus, there is gross delay in initiation of the suo motu proceedings, therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court. In support of this submissions, he referred to and relied upon the Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71; the decisions of this Hon'ble Court in case of Aambabhai Rajabhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2024 (3) GLR 2155; the Judgment dated 16.10.2018 delivered in Special Civil Application No.20990/2015 (in case of Nathubhai Bhagwanbhai Dudhat Vs. State of Gujarat); in case of Minaxiben Shashikantbhai Patel Vs. Dist. Collector, reported in 2007 (1) GLR 277; and in case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel Vs. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel, reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2255. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid decisions, it it settled that suo motu proceedings has to be initiated within reasonable time, however in the present case, admittedly suo motu proceedings have been initiated after a period of seven years. It is, therefore, urged that considering above facts of the case, the present petition may be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah has opposed the present petition contending inter alia that at the time of passing impugned orders, the revenue authorities have taken into consideration all the facts of the case and passed orders, which may not be interfered with. He submitted that Entry No.1395 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 19.02.2007 based on Will, which is Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined unregistered, therefore, when the said defect had come to the notice of the respondent - Collector, show cause notice was issued upon the respondent no.5 to show cause as to why the said entry should not be cancelled and while undertaking such proceedings, the respondent - Collector had jumped to a conclusion that some lapse is found out on the part of the revenue authority concerned, therefore, the said entry was cancelled and the said order has been rightly confirmed by the respondent - Secretary, therefore, there is no error of law committed by the authorities concerned, which requires interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.
7. Learned AGP Ms. Shah has referred to provision of Section 135D of the Revenue Code, more particularly, Section 135D(2), which provides for "Whenever a designated officer makes an entry, either manually or electronically in the register of mutations, he shall at the same time intimate to all persons appearing from the record of rights or register of mutations to be interested in the mutation and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein in the manner as may be prescribed." and submitted that as per the said provision, notice was issued but admittedly the executor of the Will passed away and his heirs were not brought on record, therefore, the notice was issued upon the respondent no.5 and not to the petitioner herein.
Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined She, therefore, submitted that if at all this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present petition, in that event, it would affects the rights of the heirs of the executor of the Will as their names would automatically be deleted from the revenue record, therefore, they are required to be heard as they are aggrieved parties. She, therefore, submitted that at the most, the matter may be remanded back to the concerned authority for fresh consideration.
8. In view of the rival submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties and having considered the documents available on record including the impugned orders, it is found out that the dispute is with regard to the cancellation of Entry No.1395 mutated in the revenue record on 19.02.2007, which has been taken into suo motu after a period of seven years.
9. Having considered the documents, it appears that the land in question was originally belonging to one Rohit Dhanabhai Virabhai, who during his lifetime, had executed "Will" in favour of his nephew i.e. the respondent no.5 herein and after sad demise of said Dhanabhai Rohit in the year 2007, Entry No.1395 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 19.02.2007 on the basis of the Will produced by the respondent no.5 herein, which was also certified on 04.04.2007 and thereby his name entered into the revenue record. However subsequently, the respondent no.5 entered into Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined sale transaction with one Parshottambhai Karshanbhai Desai, who again sold the said land to Rakeshbhai Kalubhai Dhameliya and Bharatbhai Bachubhai Dhameliya, who again sold the land to the petitioners herein by way of executing registered sale deed. It is required to be noted that all above sale transactions had taken place by way of executing registered sale deed and based on the said registered sale deed, entries were mutated and subsequently certified also. It is required to be noted that the petitioner was earlier known as "Bhikhubhai" but he had changed his name from "Bhikhubhai" to "Bhaveshbhai", therefore, the applied for rectification of the revenue record and accordingly, Entry No.1747 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 29.01.2013 and thus till mutation of said entry, there was no proceedings initiated by the authority concerned. However subsequent, the respondent - Collector had initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 108(6) of the Revenue Code against the mutation of entry Entry No.1395 dated 19.02.2007 by issuing notice upon the respondent no.5 herein, in whose favour, Will was executed and pursuant thereto, he remained present before the respondent - Collector and submitted his reply but it has not been considered and the aforesaid entry has been cancelled and the said decision has been upheld by the respondent - SSRD in the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner and thus, aforesaid Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined two orders have been assailed before this Hon'ble Court by filing present petition. However if the order of the respondent - Collector is carefully seen, in that event, it is found out that on two counts, Entry No.1395 has been cancelled i.e. (1) "Will" is unregistered and the Probate Certificate was not obtained from the competent authority; and (2) the respondent no.5 has not produced proof as to whether the land in question belongs to private ownership of the deceased or it was ancestral property.
10. Now I would like to consider the grounds on which the impugned entry has been taken into suo motu i.e. (1) "Will" is unregistered and the Probate Certificate was not obtained from the competent authority; and (2) the respondent no.5 has not produced proof as to whether the land in question belongs to private ownership of the deceased or it was ancestral property. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that there is no dispute about unregistered Will and probate has not been obtained. In this regard, I would like to refer to and rely upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Ramniklal (Ramanlal) Trikamji Sevak (supra) upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate, Mr. Purohit. In the said decision, this Hon'ble Court has observed as under, "5. The copy of the Will is produced at Annexure-
E and the perusal thereof, shows that there is no reference for succession by will of any Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined property located at Mumbai or within the boundaries of corporation area of Mumbai. The Will is pertaining to property located at Junagadh which area is not covered in the presidential town. It is by now well settled that if any property is not located in the presidential town and is outside the area of presidential town, the probate is not a must for succession of the rights of the parties based on the will. The reference may be made to the decision of Apex Court in case of Clarence Pais and Others V/s. Union of India reported in (2001) 4 SCC 325 and the another decision of this Court based on the above referred decision of the Apex Court in case of Minaxiben S.Patel V/s. District Collector, Gandhinagar reported in 2007(1) GLR 277. In the said decision, this Court observed at para-4 to 8 as under:
4. As such, on the aspects of the existence of the Will, there is no dispute.
Whether the Will is genuine or not is also not in dispute before this Court. Whether by the present Will, rights of the other legal heirs of the deceased are affected in any manner or not is also not an aspect, which is the subject matter of this petition. The only aspect, which arise for consideration is legality and validity of the stand taken by the District Collector for insistence of the probate before making mutation entry in the revenue record based the will of the deceased.
5. In my view, as per the provisions of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), the provisions of testamentary succession are applicable to the Will made by Hindu, subject to restriction and the modifications specified therein. The Will made by Hindu are differently classified qua the property situated within the territories, which were subject to the control of the Lieutenant- Governor of Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay. Whereas, qua all other Wills made by Hindus, a separate clause is provided under clause (c) of the Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act.
As per Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, the right as executor or legatee pursuant to the Will can be established in any Court of justice unless a Court of competent jurisdiction has granted probate of the said Will.
However, subsection 2 of Section 213 provides that this Section shall not apply to the Will made by Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh where such Wills are of the clauses specified in clause (a) &
(b) of Section 57 of the Act. To say in other words, if the Will is falling in the category of the clauses other than Clause (a) & (b) of Section 57 of the Act, the restriction as provided in sub- section 1 of Section 213 of the Act shall not operate.
7. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to extract certain observations of the Apex Court in the case of Clarence Pais and Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported at 2001 SC 1151 wherein while considering the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 213 vis-a-vis Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act at para 6, it has been observed by the Apex Court inter alia as under:
A combined reading of Section 213 and 57 of the Act would show that where the parties to the will are Hindus or the properties in dispute are not in territories falling under Section 57(a) and (b), sub-section(2) of Section 213 of the Act applies and subsection(1) has no application. As a consequence, a probate will not be required to be obtained by a Hindu in respect of a will made outside those territories or Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined regarding the immovable properties situate outside those territories. (emphasis supplied.)
8. The aforesaid position of law is settled by the highest Court of the country and therefore, no further discussion may be required .
6. Same situation would prevail in the present matter inasmuch as the Will was pertaining to the property not located in the presidential town but located outside the area of presidential town i.e. Junagadh. Probate was not required to be obtained before the Will is acted upon.
7. Under these circumstances, the order of the Revenue Authority on the basis that probate was required to be obtained before the entry was recorded in the revenue record pertaining to the Will cannot be sustained. On the aspect that one of the property is located at Mumbai or was pertaining to property of Mubmai. The said ground is non existence and the findings so recorded, could be said as perverse to the record."
11. Thus from the aforesaid decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court, if the facts of the present case are examined, in that event, it is evident that here in the present case, admittedly the owner of the land in question Rohit Dhanabhai Virabhai had executed Will in favour of his nephew i.e. the respondent no.5 herein, who on the basis of the said Will, had entered into sale transactions and, thereafter, several transactions had taken place and lastly, the petitioner herein has purchased the land in question after following due procedure of law and on the basis of the registered sale deed, entry came to be mutated, however when an application for rectification of the name was Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined moved, Entry No.1395 dated 19.02.2007 was taken into suo motu on the ground that earlier when the entry was mutated in the revenue record based on Will, probate had not been obtained. However, the said aspect has been cleared by the aforesaid decision of this Hon'ble Court, wherein it has been crystallized the position of fact referring to the provision of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 that probate is not a must for succession of the rights of the parties based on the Will and declared the findings given in the said case as perverse. Therefore in the present case on hand, in my considered opinion, probate is not required to be obtained, therefore, the ground on which the entry was taken into suo motu cannot be sustained. Therefore in view of the above decision, the contention of learned advocate, Mr. Purohit that the probate is not a must for the purpose of getting the names mutated in the record of rights on the strength of Will is fully fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of Ramniklal (supra). Therefore, the Collector could not have raised the issue of probate in the show-cause notice. This ground itself is not available. If the ground itself is not available, the same goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Collector in issuing such show cause notice.
12. Not only that, recent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in the case of Tarachandra Vs. Bhawarlal, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1246, has Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined clarified that mutation of land records can legally be carried out on the basis of a will and such mutation cannot be denied merely because the claim is founded on a testamentary document. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that mutation entries are purely fiscal in nature and do not confer title or ownership rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that mutation entries do not confer any right, title, or interest in immovable property and they are meant solely for fiscal and revenue purposes, such as assessment and collection of land revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that mutation based on a will should not be denied if there is no serious dispute raised by any natural legal heir, and that mutation should proceed without the need for probate. Thus in view of the above decision, if the facts of the present case are examined again, in that event, it is clear that at the time of mutation of entry based on the Will, no objection was raised by anyone and it is an admitted position of fact that the original owner, Rohit Dhanabhai Virabhai died intestate and during his life time, he had executed the said Will in favour of the respondent no.5, who in turned entered into sale transactions with other and as stated above, lastly the petitioner has entered into sale transaction after verifying all revenue record. Over and above that, it is settled in law that the Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined decide the validity of will and Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the validity of will.
13. Now so far as one of the reasons for cancelling the entry mutated in favour of the respondent no.5 based on Will is concerned, it is stated that the respondent no.5 has not produced proof as to whether the land in question belongs to private ownership of the deceased or it was ancestral property. It is, however, required to be noted that the issue of title and/or ownership of the land can be decided by the concerned civil court and it is not within the purview of the concerned revenue authority to decide in RTS proceedings. In this regard, a useful reference can be made to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1370), wherein this Court has observed in Para Nos.9 and 10 as under, "9. It is the consistent view taken by this Court in catena of judgments that the revenue authorities while dealing with RTS proceedings had no jurisdiction and/or authority to decide the question of title and if there is any dispute with regard to title the parties are to be relegated to the Civil Court. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat VS. Patel Raghav Natha - AIR 1969 SC Page 1297 and judgment of this Court in the case of Ratilal Chunilal Solanki & Ors. Vs. Shantilal Chunilal Solanki - 1996(2) GLR 525 and Siddharth B. Shah vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999(3) GLR Page 2527, the revenue authorities cannot decide the disputed question of title to the property and they have to merely go by the documents Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined produced before them. Even this Court has held in the case of Nathabhai Meraman Darji (Supra) that when a document of registered sale deed is produced before the authority, the revenue authorities are bound to give effect to the same and are not required to decide the question of title.
10. Even this Court in a recent judgment in the case of L.R.s of Popat Khima Ramani and Ors. vs. Collector, Rajkot and Ors., reported in 2003(1) GLH 30, has considered the scope of revenue authorities while deciding the question with regard to mutation entry and the powers under Section 135 and Rule 108, has held that revenue authorities are not to decide the question about title and the revenue authorities are to make necessary entries on the basis of decision of Civil Court. It is further held in the said judgment that the revenue authorities are invested with limited powers under Section 135 and they cannot assume to themselves certain powers conferred on them by law and they cannot assume jurisdiction of Civil Court. The revenue authorities cannot decide validity of transaction on touchstone of statutory provision occurring in some enactment and that they cannot decide disputed question of title. In fact, this Court has gone to the extent that when a dispute as to the title arises the parties have to go to the competent Civil Court. In the present case, in fact the Civil Suit is pending between the parties and the Civil Court is to decide all these questions which are raised by the petitioner in the present Special Civil Application with regard to validity of the power of attorney, the genuineness of sale deed, and the authority of power of attorney holder on the basis of the power of attorney. Considering the fact that the suit is pending between the parties and that the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the sale deed before the Civil Court and that there is an injunction in the said Suit, in fact the Secretary (Appeals) has tried to strike the Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined balance and has tried to protect the interests of all the parties by directing that the factum of injunction granted by the Civil Court should also be noted in the entry and that the entry in favour of respondent No.5 would be subject to the ultimate outcome of the suit pending between the parties in which the legality and validity of the sale deed is challenged. It cannot be said that there is any illegality committed by the Secretary (Appeals). On the contrary, the judgment and order passed by the revisional authority, i.e. Secretary (Appeals) is in consonance with the provisions of Section 135 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court with regard to the powers of revenue authorities while dealing with the question of mutation entries. The revenue authorities are not required to consider with regard to the genuineness of the sale deed, the powers and authority of the power of attorney holder under the power of attorney and the question with regard to the title. What is required to be done by the Sub-Registrar at the time when the sale deed was executed cannot be permitted to be done by the Mamlatdar and/or revenue authorities while deciding the question with regard to mutation entry, more particularly the entry in the record of rights is only having a presumptive value and only for a fiscal purpose of recovering and payment of revenue and it does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of any party in the property."
14. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid proposition of law as well as the facts of the present case, in my considered opinion, the revenue authorities while exercising the powers under the revenue jurisdiction appear to have exceeded its jurisdiction by cancelling the entry mutated in Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined favour of the petitioner on the basis of the Will executed in favour of the respondent no.5, that too, after much period.
15. At this stage, submission of learned advocate, Mr. Purohit with regard to non-service of the notice upon the petitioner while taking the impugned entry into suo motu is also required to be considered. It is found out from the documents produced on record that while initiating suo motu proceedings, the notice was issued upon the respondent no.5, who remained present before the authority and submitted his reply, however, the said reply was not considered and impugned order came to be passed cancelling the entry and when the said fact came to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner immediately challenged the said order before the respondent - Secretary and pointed out all above facts but the respondent
- Secretary rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner. It is required to be noted that the suo motu proceedings have been initiated in the year 2013 and at that relevant point of time, the name of the petitioner was running in the revenue record, therefore, the notice ought to have been served upon the petitioner, which here in the present case admittedly has not been served.
16. Further, it is also an admitted fact that, in the present case, suo motu exercise of power by the authority is after six years. Now, it is well Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined settled by catena of decisions that suo motu revision of power needs to be exercised in a reasonable period of time. Even if no limitation is prescribed for exercising such power, even in such case power needs to be exercised in reasonable period of time. At this stage, I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors., reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187, wherein it was held that if the revisional authority was inclined to exercise the power under the Revenue Code, it ought to have been satisfied that such power has been invoked within reasonable time, otherwise the bar of delay would operate. Relevant observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions read as under, "12. It seems to us that sec. 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act u/s. 211. u/s. 65 of the Code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Ss. 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1605/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026 undefined the permission. In this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector on 12.10.1961, i.e., more than a year after the order, and it seems to us that this order was passed too late.
17. Thus in view of aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the suo motu powers are required to be exercised within reasonable time. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the suo motu proceedings were initiated by authority concerned after a period of approximately seven years and thus, admittedly said suo motu proceedings were not initiated within reasonable period. Therefore considering the above facts of the case, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
18. In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the respondent no.1 - Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/NARMADA/30/2016 and the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 - Collector in Land/Entry/ Review/ Case No.55/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside and as a corollary effect, Entry No.1395 dated 19.02.2007 is restored in the revenue record.
19. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:30:06 IST 2026