Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Chandubha Shivubha Mori vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/12434/2018                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                    12434 of 2018

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI    :    Sd/-
                      =======================================================

                                Approved for Reporting    Yes      No
                                                           √       --
                      =======================================================
                                   CHANDUBHA SHIVUBHA MORI & ORS.
                                               Versus
                                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      =======================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR DARSHAN B GANDHI for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7
                      MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7
                      MR JAY TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                      =======================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                       Date : 24/11/2025
                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under

the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Revenue Code" for short"), the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs, "a) xxx xxx xxx
b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 28th February 2018 passed by the Respondent No. 1 at Annexure A and declare the same to be null and void;
Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined

c) Pending the admission and final disposal of the petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.1 at Annexure A.

d) Pending the admission and final disposal of the petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to maintain status quo qua the title and possession of the land in question; 

                               e)      xxx     xxx     xxx;

                               f)      xxx     xxx     xxx;"

2. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Kruti Shah for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondents - State authorities and learned advocate, Mr. Darshan Gandhi for the respondent Nos.5 to 7.

3. Learned advocate, Ms. Shah submitted that the dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No.158 admeasuring 6-71-78 situated in the sim of Village : Vankda, Taluka & District : Morbi (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question" for short), which was owned and occupied by two sisters viz., Savitaben Premdas Bavaji and Kantaben Premdas Bavaji by virtue of inheritance upon the death of their mother. She submitted that the petitioners herein have entered into sale transaction with the aforesaid land owners by way of executing registered sale deed on 11.06.2013 and on the strength of the said registered sale deed, Entry No.1886 was mutated in the revenue record, which was subsequently certified also by the concerned Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined revenue authority. She submitted that however subsequently, the respondent nos.5 to 7 herein have raised their objection against the certification of the said entry, therefore, the entry mutated in favour of the father of the petitioner on the strength of the registered sale deed has been cancelled by the respondent - Mamlatdar, therefore, the petitioners approached the respondents - Deputy Collector, Collector and SSRD against the cancellation of those entries, however, those revenue authorities have turned down the request of the petitioners, therefore, the present petition is preferred.

4. Learned advocate, Ms. Shah submitted that in fact, the petitioners are the bonafide purchaser of the land in question on payment of entire sale consideration to the original land owners, that too, after executing registered sale deed. She submitted that in fact, before execution of the registered sale deed, the petitioners have followed all required procedures including by issuing public notice as also title clearance certificate and after having received "No Objection" from the person concerned, the petitioners have entered into transaction of registered sale deed, therefore, there was no breach as alleged by the revenue authorities. She submitted that the respondent nos.5 to 7, who have raised objection against the certification of the entry, have no connection with the land in Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined question and despite the said fact, they have objected it and at the time of deciding those objections, the aforesaid aspects have not been properly considered by the revenue authorities. She referred to the order dated 02.12.2013 of the respondent - Mamlatdar and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the observations made by the respondent - Mamlatdar, in that event, it is found out that learned Mamlatdar has cancelled the said entry by giving following reasons i.e. revenue records suggest that the land in question falls under the provision of Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 as well as Barkhali Abolition Rules and the sale transaction took place in contravention of the Government Resolution dated 09.04.2010, therefore, the said entry is required to be cancelled. She, however, submitted that in fact, at the time of deciding the said proceeding, the petitioners have produced copy of the order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Morbi in Regular Civil Suit No.124/2005, whereby the civil rights of the parties have been crystallized by the learned Civil Judge, however, the said aspect has not been properly considered by the respondent - Mamlatdar and cancelled the entry and the said decision has been upheld by other revenue authorities without assigning cogent and convincing reasons, therefore, the impugned orders may be quashed and Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined set aside and the impugned entry may be directed to be restored.

5. At this stage, learned advocate, Ms. Shah has drawn attention towards the order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Morbi in Regular Civil Suit No.124/2005, copy of which is produced on record, and submitted that the said suit was preferred by the respondent nos.5 and 6 against the owner land owner viz., Savitaben Premdas and Kantaben Premdas, wherein after providing ample opportunity to both the parties and on the strength of the material produced on record by both the parties, the learned Civil Judge has taken decision, which is binding to the revenue authority, however it appears that the revenue authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction. She submitted that in fact, in view of various judicial pronouncements, the civil court is the competent authority to decide the civil rights of the parties over the land and not by the revenue authority and thus, the revenue authorities have travelled beyond jurisdiction by cancelling the entry mutated in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the registered sale deed. She took this Court to the observations made by the learned Judge while passing said order and submitted that the learned Judge has categorically observed that the said land belongs to one Savji Vashram and the promulgation had taken place on 24.12.1953, however, there is no entry in the Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined revenue record reflecting the name of Premjibhai Narandas but thereafter on 06.04.1976, Entry No.624 came to be certified by the Executive Magistrate, which is a succession entry transferring the land in question in favour of heirs of Premdas Narandas after his sad demise and since then, they are the owner and occupant of the land in question and nowhere in the revenue record, entry regarding the name of "Administrator of the Temple" mentioned. She further submitted that to prove their case, the plaintiffs of the said suit have examined Sarpanch and Talati-cum- Mantri of the village, however during their cross- examination, they have fairly admitted the fact that the suit land does not disclose the fact that the land in question is known as "#akr m>idrn u idvelIyu"

and thus, the original plaintiffs have failed to prove their case by leading cogent and convincing evidence on record, therefore, the said suit was dismissed by assigning cogent and convincing reasons. She, therefore, submitted that when the rights of the parties have been crystallized by the learned civil court, in that event, the revenue authorities ought not to have dwelled into aspect of deciding the title over the land by observing that there is breach of certain provision, therefore, entry is required to be cancelled. She further submitted that while passing order by the respondent - SSRD, reliance is placed upon the Government Resolution dated Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined 09.04.2010, however, the said Resolution is not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that any resolution may not override the provision of the law, therefore, the reliance place upon the said resolution is not justifiable one.
6. Learned advocate, Ms. Shah submitted that in fact, the order passed by the learned Civil Court is of the year 2007 and till date, the said order has not been challenged by either party and thus, the said order has attained finality. Over and above that, the sale deed is of the year 2013, however, it has not been challenged by the aggrieved party till date. She, therefore, submitted that when there is no challenge to the order passed by the learned civil court as also sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, there was no reason for the revenue authorities for cancelling the same, which clearly goes on to show that the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction.
7. Learned advocate, Ms. Shah, at this stage, submitted that in fact, there are numerous case laws, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court have observed that on production of the registered document, the revenue authorities are under an obligation to mutate entry pursuant thereto, therefore here in the present case, the revenue authorities ought not to have cancelled the entry mutated pursuant to registered sale deed, that too, on an objection Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined raised by third party, who have nothing to do with the land in question. In support of the above submissions, she has relied upon following decisions, (1) the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh Vs. Birbal, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353;
(2) the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Diwansinh Dursinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2021 law Suit (Guj) 2996;
(3) the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Raichand Kanjibhai Shah Vs. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2018 (4) GLR 3496; (4) the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2016 GLR 1786;
(5) the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Pagi Aataji Kacharaji Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1499; (6) the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel Vs. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) GLR 525;
8. Referring to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid decisions, learned advocate submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by those decisions. It is, therefore, Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined urged that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities may be quashed and set aside the impugned entry may be restored.
9. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi appearing for the respondent nos.5 to 7 has strongly objected to the present petition and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are just and proper and do not require any interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court. He submitted that in fact, the respondent nos.5 to 7 - original third party have submitted their objection against the certification of the entry and after considering their objections, the respondent - Mamlatdar jumped to a conclusion that the entry mutated in favour of the petitioners is required to be cancelled and ordered accordingly and the higher revenue authorities have upheld the said order by turning down the request made by the petitioners by assigning reasons. He submitted that in fact, suit for declaration and permanent injunction was also preferred, however, it had not been entertained by the learned civil court. He submitted that at the time of submission of objection by the respondent nos.5 to 7, it is specifically stated that the transaction took place between the parties is not genuine one and is in contravention of the provision of law. He submitted that the land, which was sold by the daughters of the Pujari to the father of the Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined petitioners herein is a temple land as the said land was given by the villagers for the maintenance and welfare of the temple and Pujari of the temple has to carry out agricultural activity upon the said land, therefore, entry to that effect was also mutated in the revenue record as "#akr m>idrn u idvelIyu" and the said fact was well within the knowledge of the daughters but subsequently after the death of their father, their names were entered into, however after their marriage, they shifted to different village and they were not at all connected with the agricultural activity and despite the said fact, they have entered into sale transaction with the petitioner. He referred to the Government Resolution dated 09.04.2010 issued by the State Government, copy of which is produced on record and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the contents of the said resolution, in that event, it is found out that the said transaction had taken place in contravention to the said resolution, therefore, the entry mutated in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled by impugned order and the said order has been rightly upheld by the higher revenue authorities.
10. Learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi referred to the orders passed by the revenue authorities, more particularly, the observations made by them and submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined cursory glance upon those observations, in that event, it is found out that the authorities concerned have jumped to a conclusion that the land in question was given to Pujari for the purpose of maintenance and welfare of the temple activity and as per the Government Resolution, the Administrator of the temple cannot sale, gift, transfer and/or alienate the said land in favour of any party and, therefore, the concerned revenue authorities have rightly decided the issue and cancelled the entry. He submitted that in fact, the learned civil court has wrongly observed that the original plaintiffs have failed to produce any material to show that the land in question was originally belonging to their father and they had become the owner of the land in question. He submitted that the land in question was old tenure land and they were the owner and occupant of the land in question.
11. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 222 and referring to the observations made in the said decision, it is submitted that Pujari is only a grantee to manage property of deity and such grant can be reassumed if Pujari fails to do task assigned to him and he cannot be treated as a Bhumiswami and he does not have any right in land and his status is only that Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined of a manager. He emphasized the observation made in Paragraph No.19 of the said decision.
12. Learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi, after making above submission, submitted that the order passed by the revenue authorities are just, proper and based upon sound principle of law and same do not require any interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may be rejected.
13. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi appearing for the respondents - State authorities has also objected the present petition contending that at the time of passing impugned orders by the revenue authorities, all the facts of the case including the material available on record as also revenue record have been taken into consideration, therefore, there is no error of law committed by the authorities. He further submitted that in fact, the dispute is between two parties and the Government has nothing to do with the said internal dispute. However, he reiterated his submissions that the authorities have not committed any error.
14. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the records available on record, it is found out that the dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No.158 admeasuring 6-71-78 situated in the sim of Village : Vankda, Taluka & District : Morbi, which has been purchased by the petitioners by way of executing registered sale Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined deed and on the basis of the registered sale deed, Entry No.1886 came to be mutated, however on the basis of the application being made by the respondent nos.5 to 7 raising their objection against the certification of the said entry, the learned Mamlatdar cancelled the said entry on the ground that the the land in question falls under the provision of Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act, 1951 as well as Barkhali Abolition Rules and the sale transaction took place in contravention of the Government Resolution dated 09.04.2010 and the said order has been upheld by the higher revenue authorities by passing impugned orders, therefore, the present petition is preferred challenging those orders on the ground that the revenue authorities have not taken into consideration the facts of the case and wrongly cancelled the entry, which is required to be restored as the revenue authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction.
15. Having considered the material available on record, it is found out that the land in question was given to one Premdas Narandas and accordingly, entry to that effect was also mutated in the revenue record. However after his sad demise, name of his wife, Diwaliben was mutated and after her sad demises in the year 2001, name of her two daughters, Savitaben Premdas Bavaji and Kantaben Premdas Bavaji came to be mutated and both the daughters, after their marriage, have shifted to Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined other place, however, son of Savitaben viz., Shantilal was residing at Vankda village and was cultivating the land in question since long. Not only that, both the daughters were cultivating the land and thus, their names were running in the revenue record. However in the year 2005, the respondent nos.5 and 6 herein have instituted Regular Civil Suit No.124/2005 before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Morbi inter alia praying for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein after hearing the parties, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Morbi, by judgment and order dated 29.09.2007, dismissed the said suit and thereby confirmed the title over the land in question in favour of two daughters of Premdas Narandas viz., Savitaben Premdas Bavaji and Kantaben Premdas Bavaji. It is required to be noted that the said order has not been challenged by the original plaintiffs therein and thus, it has attained finality.
16. It is also found out that thereafter in the year 2013, the father of the petitioners entered into sale transaction with the original land owners by executing registered sale deed dated 11.06.2013 and pursuant thereto, Entry No.1886 came to be mutated in the revenue record and it was also certified. However, the respondent nos.5 & 6 have raised objection against the certification of the said entry, therefore after hearing both the parties, the respondent - Mamlatdar passed an Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined order, whereby entry mutated in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. The said order has been assailed by the petitioners before the respondent - Deputy Collector, Collector as well as SSRD, however, those revenue authorities have upheld the orders, which led the petitioners to file present petition.
17. I have considered the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in civil suit preferred by the respondent nos.5 and 6 and found out that the learned Civil Judge has crystallized the position that the original plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case. Not only that, the learned Civil Judge has categorically observed that while examining the witness, Madhavjibhai Kalyanjibhai at Exh.71, he has stated in his chief examination that the said land belongs to one Savji Vashram and the promulgation had taken place on 24.12.1953, however, there is no entry in the revenue record reflecting the name of Premjibhai Narandas but thereafter on 06.04.1976, Entry No.624 came to be certified by the Executive Magistrate, which is a succession entry transferring the land in question in favour of heirs of Premdas Narandas after his sad demise and since then, they are the owner and occupant of the land in question and nowhere in the revenue record, entry in regard to the name of "Administrator of the Temple"

mentioned. Even after having cross-examined the witnesses viz., Chandulal Laxmidas as well as Madhavjibhai Kalyanjibhai, they have fairly admitted the fact that the suit land does not disclose that Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined particular fact that the land in question is known as "#akr m>idrnu idvelIyu" and even the original plaintiffs have failed to prove their case by leading evidence on record.

18. In view of the above background of the facts of the case, now the question which would arise for consideration of this Hon'ble Court is as to whether the entry, which was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed, can be cancelled by the revenue authority in exercise of power conferred under the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code despite the fact that title over the land in question has already been decided by the competent civil court in a suit preferred by the respondent nos.5 and 6 and there is no dispute about the same raised by either parties by challenging the said decision.

19. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case, there is no dispute about the execution of the registered sale deed by the original land owners in favour of the petitioners and on the basis of the registered sale deed, the revenue authority is under an obligation to mutate the entry. Therefore, when there is a registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners and the same is not challenged in any civil proceedings, much less set aside, the revenue authority is bound by the same. It is trite principle that an entry in the revenue record has to follow to be mutated when the transaction is by a registered document. In this regard, a useful Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined reference can be made to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in case of Javerbhai Savjibhai Patel Vs. Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) GLH 657, wherein this Hon'ble Court has laid down such principle that when the transaction is represented by a registered document, the revenue authority is required to take suo motu cognizance thereof for the purpose of mutation in the revenue record. It was held that question of following procedure of Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code would not arise when a transaction is by a registered deed. Such transaction cannot be disputed by the revenue authority unless the competent civil court annuls the same. The aforesaid decision has been considered by this Hon'ble Court in case of Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate, Ms. Shah. Therefore, the petitioners are within their right to continue with the entries in their name in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale transaction which is holding the field and is not sought to be set aside by the other side in any civil proceedings.

20. So far as conclusion arrived at by the respondent

- Mamlatdar while cancelling the entry mutated in favour of the petitioners contending that the sale transaction was in contravention of the provision of the Revenue Code is concerned, I do not find any substance in such conclusion in view of the Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined fact that it is settled proposition of law that it is the competent civil court, who is competent to decide the title over the land and not by the revenue authority in exercise of power under the provision of the Revenue Code. The said aspect is already considered by this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991(1) GLR 113, and also in the case of Siddharth B. Shah & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 (3) GLR 2527. This Court in the aforesaid two judgments has considered the scope and ambit of Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities while considering the RTS proceedings and has held as under;

"So far as the proceedings under Sec. 108 of the Rules popularly known as RTS proceedings are concerned it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. Such mutations have to follow either the documents of title or the orders passed by the competent authorities under special enactments. Independently the revenue authorities, as mentioned in 108 of the Rules, cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transactions recorded in the entry are against the provisions of a particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by following the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely to be affected by any order that may be passed."
Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined

21. So far as the reliance placed by learned advocate, Mr. Gandhi upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the same decision. However looking to the facts of the present case, the said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

22. Now again coming to the facts of the case, the mutation entry No.1886 was mutated on the basis of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Further as stated above, the civil suit between the original owners and the respondent nos.5 & 6 was instituted, which was already dismissed by the learned Civil Judge as stated above. Not only that, it is not in dispute that against the dismissal of the suit, there is no further proceedings instituted by either parties and thus, it has attained finality and even the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners has not been challenged till date. Therefore in absence of any prohibitory order against the petitioners in respect of the registered sale deed on the basis of which the mutation entry was mutated in the revenue record, the revenue authorities were not justified in cancelling the revenue entry No.1886 which was in favour of the petitioner. On going through the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities, it is found out Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined that that in spite of the fact that the petitioners drew the attention of the authorities about the order passed by the competent civil court in civil suit between the parties, the respondent - Mamlatdar cancelled the entry in favour of the petitioner, which has been upheld by higher revenue authorities. However in view of settled law, once a registered sale deed is executed, revenue entry is required to be mutated on the basis of such sale deed. Other aspects such as whether notice under Section 135D of the Code was served upon the interested parties would become insignificant in view of the above referred judgments. The only important aspect for mutating the revenue entry would be that if it is on the basis of a registered sale deed, unless the validity of that registered sale deed is determined and the registered sale deed is annulled, the validity of the mutation entry based upon such registered sale deed cannot be cancelled.

23. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the law with regard to mutation of entry of a registered sale deed as well as while mutation of the entry, the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities has already been settled by this Hon'ble Court in catena of decisions. It would be apt to take note of the decision of this Court in case of Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1370. The Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined relevant observations of the said decision read, thus;

"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 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 Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined 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 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.

Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined 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.

11. So far as submissions and arguments on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the aforesaid transaction that there would be a breach of provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Act as the land would be fragmented and therefore also the respondent could not have purchased the land in question and the said transaction was in breach of provisions of the Act and therefore also the entry in favour of the respondent could not have been made on the basis of the said sale. This aspect is already considered by this Court in the case of Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State, reported in 1991(1) GLR 113, and also in the case of Siddharth B. Shah & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999(3) GLR Page 2527. This Court in the aforesaid two judgments has considered the scope and ambit of Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities while considering the RTS proceedings and has held as under;

"So far as the proceedings under Section 108 of the Rules popularly known as RTS proceedings are concerned it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. Such mutations have to follow either the documents of title or the orders passed by the competent authorities under special enactments. Independently the Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined revenue authorities, as mentioned in 108 of the Rules, cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transactions recorded in the entry are against the provisions of a particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by following the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely to be affected by any order that may be passed."

Considering the judgment of this Court in aforesaid two cases, there is no substance in the argument and submission on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that while considering the RTS proceedings and making necessary entry in favour of the respondents, the revenue authority was also required to consider that by aforesaid transaction there will be breach of provisions o Fragmentation Act or not and the same is required to be rejected."

24. 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 favour of the petitioners on the basis of the registered sale deed. The entire crux for cancellation of the mutation of entry is on account of breach of condition. In my considered opinion, under the provision of Section 135-C of the Revenue Code, it is the duty of the revenue authorities to give effect of registered sale deed in the revenue records at the first instance. Not Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12434/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined only that, in the suit preferred by the respondent nos.5 and 6 herein, title of the land has been crystallized by the learned Civil Judge while dismissing the suit. Whether the petitioners are an agriculturist or not, can be the subject matter in a different and independent proceedings but, certainly, cannot be considered in the revenue proceedings. Under the circumstances, rejection of mutation entry on that ground, even otherwise, could not have been sustained. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

25. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the respondent - SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/MRB/22/2017, the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the respondent - Collector, the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the respondent - Deputy Collector and the order dated 02.12.2013 passed by the respondent - Mamlatdar are hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned revenue authority is hereby directed to mutate and certify Entry No.1886 in the revenue record pursuant to registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

Sd/-

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:06:53 IST 2025