Gujarat High Court
Atul Boards Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4311 of 2017
==========================================================
ATUL BOARDS PVT. LTD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, LD. ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 06/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the writ applicant calls in question the
legality and validity of the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by
the respondent No.2-District Collector in
Sanklan-Appeal/JMN/108(6)/Case No.105 of 2011, whereby the
mutation entries were ordered to be cancelled.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the filing of the present
application, may be summarized as under;
2.1 The land bearing Survey No.18/2, admeasuring 3 Acres
37 Gunthas, situated at Village: Varsana, Taluka: Anjar, Sub-
Registration District: Gandhidham, District: Kutch (for short
“land in question”) was declared as surplus land under the
Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short “Act,
1960”) by the State Government, and an entry to that effect
also came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry
No.157.
2.2 Thereafter, under Section 29 of the Act, 1906, the land in
Page 1 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
question was allotted to one Harijan Teja Jiva, i.e., the
respondent No.5 on 26.08.1980, and an entry to that effect
also came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry
No.162, which also came to be certified subsequently.
2.3 Thereafter, the said Harijan Teja Jiva applied for
conversation of the land in question from new tenure to old
tenure, which was granted by the Mamlatdar, Anjar as per
various Government Resolutions and Circulars as also after
obtaining opinion from the Collector concerned, upon certain
terms and conditions, and an entry to that effect also came to
be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.444.
2.4 Thereafter, the said Harijan Teja Jiva, through his power
of attorney, Hambal Bachubhai Raghubhai, sold the land in
question to one Naranbhai Himabhai Danger, i.e., the
respondent No.6 by way of a registered sale deed dated
21.07.1997, and an entry to that effect also came to be
mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.459, which was
also certified subsequently by the competent authority.
2.5 Thereafter, the said Naranbhai Himabhai Danger, i.e, the
respondent No.6 sold the land in question to one Gadhvi
Jabardan Naranji, i.e, the respondent No.7 by way of a
registered sale deed, and an entry to that effect also came to
be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.777, which
also came to be certified subsequently by the competent
authority.
2.6 Thereafter, one Mr. Kamal V. Varma, an Advocate on
behalf of Gadhvi Jabardan Naranji issued a Public Notice in a
newspapers called “Kutch Mitra” on 21.09.2009, inviting
objections/claims, if any, with respect to the land in question.
Page 2 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
2.7 Thereafter, since there was no objection or claim from
any of the parties against the land in question, and after
obtaining the title clearance certified from the Advocate, the
applicant-Company, vide registered sale deed No.3925/2011
dated 07.10.2009, purchased the land in question, and an
entry to that effect also came to be mutated in the revenue
record vide Entry No.1061 dated 29.01.2010, which also came
to be certified subsequently by the competent authority.
2.8 Thereafter, on 03.11.2009, the applicant-Company made
an application, seeking permission for industrial use under
Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy (Vidarbha Region and
Kutch) Area Act, 1958 (for short “the Act, 1958”) to the
Collector, Kutch, which was allowed and the permission was
granted by the Deputy Collector vide its order dated
06.01.2010, whereby the Deputy Collector was pleased to
grant the permission for non-agricultural use of the land in
question for industrial purpose on certain terms and
conditions.
2.9 Thereafter, the competent authorities also determined
the value of premium to be paid by the applicant-Company,
which was also accepted by the applicant-Company, and No
Objection Certificate was also issued by the Deputy Forest
Officer for the use of the land in question for industrial
purposes.
2.10 Thereafter, the Collector, Kutch, vide its letter dated
01.01.2011, denied the permission/rejected the application
made under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code to
use the land in question for industrial purposes on the ground
that the land in question was declared as surplus land under
Page 3 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
the provisions of the Act, 1960 as also on the ground that the
title of the land is not clear.
2.11 Thereafter, on 23.03.2011, the applicant-Company
addressed a letter to the Collector, Kutch, requesting to
reconsider its decision and for granting permission to use the
land for industrial purpose after deciding the applicable
premium.
2.12 However, the Collector, Kutch, initiated suo motu
proceedings against the applicant and the predecessor-in-title
of the land in question, i.e, the private respondents, wherein
the applicant appeared and filed its reply, raising manifold
grounds.
2.13 However, the Collector, Kutch, without considering the
grounds raised in the reply, vide the impugned order dated
18.04.2016, in exercise of suo motu powers under Section
108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, cancelled the
mutation Entry Nos.444, 459, 777 and 1061 mutated in the
revenue record, with a further direction to the Deputy Collector
to quash and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar with
respect to conversion of the land from new tenure to old
tenure.
2.14 Being aggrieved, the writ applicant is here before this
Court with the present application.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing for the
applicant has reiterated the facts as narrated herein above and
submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent
No.2-Collector is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and
contrary to the relevant provisions of law. He further submits
Page 4 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
that the impugned order dated 18.04.2016 is contrary to the
provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
He further submits that the respondent No.2-Collector has
grossly erred in rejecting the application of the writ applicant,
seeking permission to use the land in question for industrial
purposes on the ground that the land in question was declared
surplus under the provisions of the Act, 1960 as also on the
ground that the title of the land is not clear. Learned advocate
Mr. Purohit also submits that the impugned order passed by
the respondent No.2-Collector is contrary to the record and
facts.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that
originally the land in question was in the name of one Harijan
Teja Jiva, who got the same under Section 29 of the Act, 1960
form the Government being a surplus land, and, thereafter, the
said Harijan Teja Jiva got the land in question converted into
old tenure land as there was no violation of any of the
provisions by the said Harijan Teja in the year 1997 by the
order of the Mamlatdar, Anjar. He also submits that the said
conversion was made upon receipt of premium leviable.
Thereafter, the land in question was transferred from one hand
to another, and thereby the writ applicant is the third
transferee of the land in question. Learned advocate Mr.
Purohit also submits that the land was converted in the year
1997, and the suo motu proceedings were initiated by the
respondent No.2-District Collector in the year 2011, and as
such, there is an inordinate delay of almost 14 years in
initiating the suo motu proceedings, which is quite huge and
unexplained, and it is a settled legal position that suo motu
Page 5 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
action taken after reasonable period of time is null and void.
He further submits that the writ applicant became the owner of
the land in question by a registered document, i.e., the
registered sale deed dated 07.10.2009. Learned advocate Mr.
Purohit further submits that the respondent No.2-Collector has
erred in not appreciating the documents made available on
record like the extract of Form No.7/12 as well as the other
permission issued by the competent authorities from time to
time. He further submits that the respondent No.2-Collector
has also erred in not appreciating the fact that the writ
applicant is in possession of the land in question since 2009,
and since then it has invested huge amount of money towards
the development of the land in question, and therefore also, on
this ground also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that the
respondent No.2-Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the
validity of the transaction on the touchstone of a statutory
provision occurring in some other enactment while exercising
suo motu powers under Section 108(6) for deletion of revenue
entries, meaning thereby, in RTS proceedings, the revenue
authority cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on
assumption that the transaction recorded in the entries are
against the provisions of a particular enactment. He further
submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as this Court, in
catena of decisions, have decided that the revenue authorities
have no jurisdiction to decide whether or not a transaction is in
contravention of any statutory provision contained in any other
enactment. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit also submits that,
Page 6 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
the authority, having a limited jurisdiction, cannot obviously
exceeds its jurisdiction nor can assume jurisdiction, which at
all, not conferred upon it by the statute. Learned advocate Mr.
Purohit further submits that, revenue entries were made in the
year 1997 in favour of one Naranbhai Bhimabhai Danger, and
thereafter, in the year 2006, the same was further
mutated/transferred in the name of one Gadhvi Jabardan, and
in the year 2009, the same was mutated in favour of the writ
applicant, and as such, after a huge delay of 14 years, the
authority cannot exercise suo motu revision jurisdiction under
Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that apart
from the aspect of delay, there are certain resolutions issued
by the Government being dated 21.08.1996, 11.09.1996 and
30.12.1996, a bare reading of which, unequivocally establishes
that the lands originally granted as new/restricted tenure
should not remain restricted indefinitely, and upon continuous
agricultural use for 15 years, the tenure restrictions must be
lifted and converted into old tenure. He further submits that
these resolutions cast a positive statutory and obligatory
obligation on the revenue authorities themselves, including the
Mamlatdar, to ensure that such conversion is carried out suo
motu, without requiring any application from the agriculturist.
He submits that in the case on hand, the Mamlatdar, Anjar,
after considering the aforesaid resolutions/circulars as well as
the opinion of the Collector, passed the order of conversion of
land from new tenure to old tenure upon certain terms and
conditions including to recover the price of 60% of the value of
the land as premium. Therefore, by operation of these
Page 7 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
Government Resolutions, the land was required to be
converted to old tenure, and the revenue record was required
to be updated accordingly by the authorities. He further
submits that all the aforesaid resolutions mandated
conversion of the land into old tenure, rather than punitive
action.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that the
respondent No.2-Collector has erred in not appreciating the
fact that once an order of converting the land from new tenure
to old tenure is passed, and the said order in appropriate
proceeding, not set aside, the authority cannot exercise
jurisdiction under Rule 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code for deletion of revenue entries. He also submits that,
even otherwise, the order of conversion was validly passed by
the competent authority after referring different
resolutions/circulars of the Government, and thereafter, the
mutation entries were made and certified after due inquiry.
Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that the
respondent No.2-Collector has also erred in not appreciating
the fact that necessary permission under Section 89A of the
Act, 1958 was granted by the office of the Deputy Collector,
Kutch vide its order dated 06.01.2010 for industrial purpose,
and therefore, the authority has no jurisdiction to cancel any
revenue entry, which is otherwise mutated in the year 2009 as
there is no violation of any enactments.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that apart
from the settled legal position with regard to initiation of
proceedings under Section 108(6) at a belated stage, as also
Page 8 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
several Government resolutions, entitling the writ applicant for
conversation of the land, even on merits, the writ applicant, by
no stretch of imagination, can be said to be an ‘unauthorized
occupant’, so as to attract proceedings under Section 108(6) of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code. He also submits that the writ
applicant is the lawful purchaser of the land in question under
a duly registered sale deed, which continues to remain valid,
operative and wholly unchallenged till date. He further submits
that it is well-established principle of law that unless a
registered conveyance is set aside, cancelled, annulled, or
declared void by a competent civil court exercising plenary
jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and
allied statutory provisions, the titled conveyed thereunder
remains absolute, binding, and enforceable. He also submits
that in the absence of any civil proceedings, challenging the
writ applicant’s title or seeking cancellation of the registered
sale deed, the revenue authorities could not have assumed
jurisdiction to dub the writ applicant an ‘unauthorized
occupant’.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submits that the
respondent No.2-Collector has also traveled beyond jurisdiction
by stating that the order granting permission under Section 89
in favour of the writ applicant is also required to be taken into
revision. The said observations are unwarranted and exceed
purview of the show-cause notice, which is, as per the settled
law, is not permissible. He also submits that, even otherwise,
the Government resolutions relied upon by the authority are of
the year 2007, however, if the transactions which have
occurred from time to time are to be seen, the same are prior
Page 9 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
to the issuance of the said resolutions, and as such, as per the
settled legal proposition, solely on the basis of Government
resolutions, which are merely guidelines, the same cannot be
made applicable retrospectively. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit
further submits that the order passed by the Mamlatdar,
converting the land from new tenure to old tenure is not taken
into suo motu revision and is still in existence. Therefore,
unless and until the said order is nullified, all the actions
initiated by the Collector, exercising suo motu powers with
respect to subsequent transactions is ex facie illegal, arbitrary
and without jurisdiction. He submits that the very assumption
of jurisdiction is thus fundamentally flawed, and on this ground
alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
10. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned
advocate Mr. Purohit prays that there being merit in the
present application, the same be allowed, and the relief, as
prayed for, be granted.
11. On the other hand, the present application has been
vehemently opposed by learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami
appearing for the State-respondents. He submits that, no error,
not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been
committed by the revenue authority in passing the impugned
order. He further submits that none of the fundamental rights
of the writ applicant have been violated because of any action
or inaction on the part of the respondent authority. Learned
AGP Mr. Rami also submits that the subject land was originally
declared as surplus land, and was required to be vested in the
Government under the provisions of the Act, 1960, which was
Page 10 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
then allotted to the landless labourers or farmers for carrying
out only the agricultural activities. Learned AGP further
submits that such lands cannot be transferred or alienated to
any individual, other than the successors/heirs of the said
landholder either by way of inheritance or family partition. He
also submits that thus, if an individual acquired land under the
Land Ceiling Act, and then transferring it to any person other
than legal heirs is considered to be in violation of the allotment
conditions. He further submits that the respondent No.2-
Collector, while passing the impugned order, took into
consideration all these aspects of the case as well as the
prevailing resolutions at that point of time, and as such, the
same may not be interfered with in the present proceedings.
He submits that at the time of allotment of the land, in the
year 1980, specific condition was imposed that except carrying
out agricultural activities, no other activities can be carried out
upon the land in question, and as such, the respondent No.2-
Collector, after verifying the same, has passed the impugned
order. He, therefore, prays that the present application be
rejected.
12. Heard the learned counsel for both parties, and examined
the record.
13. The question involved in the present case is no longer res
integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT & ANOTHER
Vs. D.NARSING RAO AND OTHERS – (2015) 3 SCC 695, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with exercise of suo- motu
revisional powers after nearly 5 decades and has ruled that
Page 11 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
unexplained and inordinate delay in invoking such power
would itself tantamount to fraud upon statute apart from being
arbitrary and opposed to rule of law. Useful reference can be
made to the observations made in paragraphs 14, 16 & 17
which read as under:
“14. Admittedly, the names of the predecessors-in- title
of the respondents are found mentioned in the khasra
pahani of the year 1954-1955 pertaining to Survey
Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally Village. The purchase of the
said lands by the respondents from them under
registered sale deeds are also not seriously disputed. The
further fact is that they have been regularly paying land
revenue continuously since the year 1954. The appellants
herein issued impugned notice dated 31-12-2004 under
Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue
Act, 1317 F (1907) for cancellation of entries in the
khasra pahani of the year 1953- 1954, by fixing the date
of inquiry as 5-2-2005 and that notice is the subject-
matter of challenge here.
16. No time-limit is prescribed in the above section for
the exercise of suo motu power but the question is as to
whether the suo motu power could be exercised after a
period of 50 years. The Government as early as in the
year 1991 passed an order reserving 477 acres of land in
Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally Village for house
sites to the government employees. In other words, the
Government had every occasion to verify the revenue
entries pertaining to the said lands while passing the
Government Order dated 24-9-1991 but no exception
was taken to the entries found. Further the respondents
herein filed Writ Petition No. 21719 of 1997 challenging
the Government Order dated 24-9-1991 and even at that
point of time no action was initiated pertaining to the
entries in the said survey numbers. Thereafter, the
purchasers of land from Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed
a civil suit in OS No. 12 of 2001 on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for
a declaration that they were lawful owners and
possessors of certain plots of land in Survey No. 36, and
after contest, the suit was decreed and said decree is
Page 12 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
allowed to become final. By the impugned notice dated
31-12-2004 the suo motu revision power under Section
166-B referred to above is sought to be exercised after
five decades and if it is allowed to do so it would lead to
anomalous position leading to uncertainty and
complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties
over immovable properties.
17. In the light of what is stated above we are of the view
that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in
affirming the view of the learned Single Judge of the High
Court that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long
lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of
limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of
rule of law. ”
14. Reiteration of this aspect is again found in paragraphs 30
and 31, where the Apex Court refers to the decision in the case
of DEHRI ROHTAS LIGHT RAILWAY CO. LTD. Vs. DISTRICT
BOARD, BHOJPUR – (1992) 2 SCC 598 and in paragraph 31
where principal of law is laid down as under:
“31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction
is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were
to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean
avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs,
which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there
is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such
powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation
of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a
belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when
no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of
law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in
cases where the orders sought to be revised are
fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a
reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply
describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not
extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise
the exercise of revisional power would itself be
tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such
power in an authority.”
Page 13 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
15. In the present case also there is delay of 14 years in
initiating suo-motu proceedings after the certification of Entry
No.444 in the year 1996, converting the land from new tenure
to old tenure in favour of the original landholder, namely,
Harijan Teja Jiva. Therefore, facts in the present case and facts
of the afore-quoted decisions of the Apex Court are similar in
nature so far as the nature of the dispute and the extent of
delay are concerned. Hence, even in this case, it can safely be
said that exercise of power by the District Collector
tantamounts to arbitrary and illegal exercise of such power.
16. Moreover, when the question of delay comes, then all
other issues including breach of any of the provisions would
not have much relevance in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel
Raghav Natha, reported in 1969 (2) SCC 187. Similarly, in a
judgment reported in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda
Patil & Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors., reported in
(2009) 9 SCC 353; 2009 AIR SCW 6305, it has been observed
that such power cannot be exercised beyond a reasonable
period. It has been observed thus;
“…Having regard to the fact that the proceedings came
to be initiated after delay of more than about three years
and that the petitioner is not guilty of fraud or
suppression, the impugned proceedings and order cannot
be said to have been initiated within reasonable time
inasmuch as undisputedly the notice under the Act was
issued in 2005. The proceedings and the order are hit by
the vice of delay…”
17. Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in a
judgment reported in 2013(2) GLR 1788 in the case of
Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
Page 14 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
& Ors. had considered this aspect with reference to the delay
in exercise of such powers and the reasonable period. It has
been observed as under;
“It must be fairly said that if the statute does not
prescribe time- limit for exercise of revisional powers, it
does not mean that such powers can be exercised at any
point of time even if there is a breach of Section 43 of the
Act, which is a provision which relates to a new tenure
land, rather it should be exercised within a reasonable
period of time. It is so because the law does not expect a
settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. It
is clear from various judgments of the Supreme Court
that where a statutory provision for exercise of any suo
motu powers of revision does not prescribe any
limitation, the powers must be exercised within a
reasonable period of time even in the case of transaction
which would be termed as void transaction.”
18. Thus, the moot question is what could be considered to
be “reasonable time” when the statute does not provide for
any time-limit for exercise of such powers. The Division Bench
of the High Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of
Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya (supra) has observed in para
38 referring to an earlier judgment reported in (2003) 4 SCC
488,
“As observed in Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal,
2002(1) SCC 134, it is “looking at all the circumstances of
the case, a “reasonable time” under ordinary
circumstances; as soon as circumstances will permit; so
much time as it is necessary under the circumstances,
conveniently to do what the contract requires should be
done; some more protracted space than ‘directly; such
length of time as may fairly, and properly, and
reasonable be allowed or required, having regard to the
nature of the act or duty and to the attending
circumstances; all these convey more or less the same
idea”.
Page 15 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
Further, it has been observed,
“That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party
the rights and advantages he possesses and protects
each party from losses that he ought not to suffer
(Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn.,
2005”
19. Thus, in view of the submissions made by both the sides
coupled with aforesaid decisions and the material placed on
record, it is an undisputed fact that the land in question
belonged to one Harijan JIva, who sold the land in question to
one Shri Naranbhai Himabhai Danger way back in the year
1997, and an entry to that effect was also certified. The said
Naranbhai Himabhai Danger, then sold the land in question to
Gadhvi Jabardan Naranji in the year 2006, and an entry to that
effect also came to be certified. Thereafter, the writ applicant
purchased the land in question from said Gadhvi Jabardan
Naranji by way of registered sale deed in the year 2009, and
an entry to that effect also came to be mutated. It appears
that before purchasing the land in question, a public notice
also came to be issued, inviting objections from the individuals
against the land in question. Further, it appears that the suo
motu proceedings in respect of the land in question by the
respondent No.2- District Collector were initiated after delay of
almost 14 years. Moreover, the alleged transactions took place
much prior to the issuance of the Resolution of the year 2007
relied upon by the Collector, and therefore, the same cannot
be made applicable retrospectively in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case. It also appears that no
proceedings had been initiated to declare the sale deed to be
null and void, and the same has remained unchallenged allPage 16 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
throughout. It also appears that mutation entry remained on
record for a long period of time and that entry was never
challenged by anyone. The revenue authority was well within
the knowledge of the said entry. The impugned order came to
be passed in the RTS proceedings, cancelling the mutation
entries, solely on the ground that there is a breach of allotment
condition while entering into the sale transaction of the land in
question. Thus, exercise of power by the District Collector in
RTS proceedings is beyond the scope of power and authority
available under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Further, it
appears that necessary permissions were also obtained from
time to time by the erstwhile owners as well as by the writ
applicant under the relevant provisions of law for use of the
land in question, other than the agricultural purposes. Further,
as usual, the writ applicant has also purchased the land in
question after verifying the revenue record, and after obtaining
a title clearance certificate, and as such, no breach of
condition can be said to have been committed by the writ
applicant. On the contrary, the revenue authority ought to
have verified the record before certifying the entry.
20. Further, exercise of suo motu powers by the revenue
authority or authorities, after an unreasonable, long delay is
legally contentious, particularly because it can disrupt settled
positions and create third-party rights for individuals who acted
in good faith based on the previous state of affairs. While suo
motu powers are essential for delivering justice in public
interest, judicial precedents highlight that they cannot be
exercised at any time, but rather within a reasonable period to
protect these third-party interests. Ordinarily, when a longPage 17 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
delay occurs, subsequent transactions often happen, such as
property sales, acquisitions, or career developments, which are
valid when made. A belated suo motu decision might revoke
these, causing irreparable loss to innocent parties. The
revenue authority cannot exercise the revisional powers in a
casual manner whenever it wants to be, irrespective of the
period of limitation, which even otherwise, not vested to it.
Exercise of any such power should be within the realm of the
provisions of the statute.
21. Lastly, the entry was mutated in the revenue record in
the names of the writ applicant on the basis of an entirely legal
and valid sale deed being executed upon payment of amount
of total sale consideration. Thus, ordering to cancel the
mutation entry in respect of the land of an individual being
purchased by executing the registered sale deed, by the
concerned revenue authority would ultimately, amount to
annulment of the sale deed. It is a settled law that the revenue
authorities, cannot unilaterally annul sale deeds even if fraud
is alleged; such matters must go to a civil court.
22. 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 & Others, reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1370. The relevant
observations of the said decisions read, thus;
“9. It is the consistent view taken by this Court in catena of
Page 18 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
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 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 ofPage 19 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
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. 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 couldPage 20 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/4311/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
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 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.”
23. For all the foregoing reasons, and having regard to the
aforesaid settled position of law, the present writ application
deserve to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The
impugned order order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the
respondent No.2-District Collector in
Sanklan-Appeal/JMN/108(6)/Case No.105 of 2011 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
Page 21 of 21
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:49:40 IST 2026
