Gujarat High Court
Puranraj Ganpatraj Shah Since Decd … vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 327 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2185/1997
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 327 of 2026
==========================================================
PURANRAJ GANPATRAJ SHAH SINCE DECD THROUGH SHAILADEVI P
SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH H SHAH(2142) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 16/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. Ashish H. Shah, the learned advocate for the
appellant and perused the record.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned single
Judge in dismissing the writ petition challenging the orders
passed by the revenue authorities in canceling the mutation
entry No.2796 effected on 04.12.1987, certified on 07.01.1988
Page 1 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
and the subsequent mutation entry No.2873 dated
08.11.1988, certified on 09.12.1988.
3. It is to be noted that a show cause notice for cancellation
of the entries dated 04.12.1987 and 08.11.1988 was issued
only on 10.07.1990 and the proceedings thereafter continued
with the challenges brought by the petitioners/appellant
herein uptil the writ court. The writ petition filed in the year
1997 has been decided by the judgment and order dated
10.02.2026, which is subject matter of challenge before us.
4. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition has categorically recorded in paragraph Nos. ‘8’, ‘9’,
’10’ and ’11’ as under :-
“8. The Deputy Collector, in the remand proceedings, held
that Mutation Entry No. 2796 (based on a will) and Mutation
Entry No. 2873 (based on subsequent sale) relating to Survey
No. 1525/158 of village Oganaj, Taluka Daskroi, were illegal
and liable to be cancelled, as the respondent had, on the
strength of a unregistered and disputed will, attempted to
acquire agricultural lands and the status of an agriculturist
and thereafter purchased additional agricultural lands,
thereby violating the provisions of Section 63 of the Tenancy
Act. The Deputy Collector held that despite contentionsPage 2 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
regarding probate of the will, limitation, expenditure incurred
on development, and lack of review power, any illegal or void
transaction reflected in the revenue record can be revised at
any time. That probate does not cure violations of revenue
laws, and that the entries were contrary to the Record of
Rights and applicable statutory provisions, and accordingly
ordered cancellation of both the mutation entries.
9. The District Collector, Ahmedabad, by the impugned
order dated 24.02.1997, held that it was evident that the
petitioners’ names had been entered in the revenue records
on the basis of an unregistered disputed will through
Mutation Entry No. 2796 dated 04.12.1987. Thereafter, on
the basis thereof, further purchase of agricultural lands
through Mutation Entry No. 2873 dated 08.11.1988 were
effected. Both of these entries had been cancelled by the
competent authority. Although the petitioners contended that
probate of the will had been obtained, that large
consideration had been paid, and that the proceedings were
barred by limitation, the Collector found that the will was an
unregistered will. The Collector further held that the
transactions resulted in the petitioner attempting to acquire
agricultural land and status of an agriculturist in violation of
the Code. It was held that Section 63 of the Tenancy Act was
attracted. It was also held that any illegal or void transaction
reflected in the revenue record can be revised at any time
and is not protected by limitation. Therefore, the order
passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant cancelling
the mutation entries was legal, proper and required no
interference. Accordingly, the revision application was
rejected by the Collector and the Deputy Collector’s orderPage 3 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
was confirmed. Moreover, the petitioners are availing
remedies under the Tenancy Act and proceedings under
section 84(C) of the said Act is pending.
10. In the present case, the petitioners have purchased the
subject land by way of an unregistered will from an unknown
person not at all related to the petitioners, so as to obtain the
status of an agriculturist. After the death of the original
owner Baldevbhai Khodabhai Vaghela, on the will being
disputed by the legal heirs, the petitioners moved a probate
application and after receiving the same, have entered their
names in the revenue record as owners of the subject land.
On the basis of such mutation entry No.2796 based on
transfer by will, the petitioners have further proceeded to
purchase other agricultural lands in the same village by
registered sale deeds. It is, therefore, clear that the
petitioners had adopted the procedure of transfer by way of
will only to obtain the agricultural status. The contention of
the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners were also holding the agricultural land prior to
execution of unregistered will, cannot be accepted since the
said subject agricultural land was running in the name of
M/s. Prem Conductors Private Limited. If the contention of
the petitioners is to be accepted that they were the
agriculturists prior to execution of unregistered will, then
there was no bar for them to enter into the transactions by
way of unregistered will since thereafter all the lands have
been purchased by the petitioners on the basis of registered
sale deeds only. The law on transfer of agricultural land is
well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia vs. State of GujaratPage 4 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
reported in 2020(18) SCC 144.
11. There is another contention raised by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioners that the revision
proceedings have been initiated after a delay of 2½ years and
therefore, the same is barred by limitation. The said
contention is also liable to be rejected in as much as in
catena of decisions, this Court has held that a reasonable
period of time to initiate the revision proceedings is three
years. In the present case, the revenue authorities have
initiated the proceedings within three years and therefore, it
cannot be said that there is a gross delay in initiating the
proceedings against the petitioners.”
5. From a perusal of the order passed by the writ court, it
may be noted that the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners therein had argued before the writ court that
the Will was executed in favour of the petitioners under the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 and once the probate was
granted, the validity and effect of the Will had attained
finality, which could not have been looked into by the revenue
authorities who has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the
decision of the civil court, settling the validity of the Will. It
was argued that the revenue authorities while exercising
powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, could not have
Page 5 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
ignored or override the mandate of the Central Legislation
namely the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The act of canceling
mutation entries by disregarding the Will and the probate
amounted to bypassing the Parliamentary Law of Succession
Act and therefore, is without any authority of law.
6. As is evident from the order passed by the learned single
Judge, it was argued before him that the authorities have
erred in acting solely on the basis of the Government
Resolution dated 27.05.1992, which cannot prevail over the
statutory provisions or judicial orders particularly when the
operation of the said resolution has been stayed in a challenge
before this Court.
7. The third point argued before the learned single Judge
was that the authorities under the Land Revenue Code had no
jurisdiction to examine or decide the issues arising under the
Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short
‘the Act, 1948’), in particular the provisions of Section 63
thereof, which is the basis of passing of the orders impugned.
It was contended that by canceling the mutation entry on the
ground of alleged violation of Section 63, the revenue
Page 6 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
authorities acted without jurisdiction and the orders
impugned are to be rendered void ab initio.
8. The next argument, as pressed before the learned single
Judge, noted in the judgment impugned, was that Section 63
of the Tenancy Act does not apply to transfer by Will and the
judgments of this Court in that regard holding field are
binding on the revenue authorities. Lastly, it was argued that
initiation of suo motu proceedings/revisional proceedings
after an unreasonable and long delay is arbitrary and illegal.
Belated exercise of powers by the revenue authorities under
the Land Revenue Code is without any explanation and
contrary to the settled legal principles.
9. The findings returned by the learned single Judge in
paragraph Nos. ‘9’ and ’10’ of the judgment are the answers
to the issues raised before him, as extracted hereinabove.
10. It may be noted that the petitioners claimed to be the
agriculturists within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Tenancy Act and the contention was that the petitioners
personally cultivated the agricultural lands. It is not
Page 7 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
necessary under the tenancy laws that an agriculturist must
necessarily own land in his name. Continuous personal
cultivation is sufficient enough to confirm the status of an
agriculturist. The decision of the revenue authorities holding
the transaction by way of Will and sale deed of the year 1982,
which are the basis for mutation of entries of 1987 and 1988,
being hit by Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, therefore, is
illegal.
11. Learned single Judge categorically returned a finding
taking note of the observations in the order of the Deputy
Collector that any probate of Will does not cure violation of
revenue laws and the review of mutation entries taking note
of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 was strictly in
accordance with the statutory provisions. It was also noted
that the transactions resulted in the petitioners’ attempting to
acquire agricultural lands and the status of agriculturists in
violation of the Tenancy Act and Section 63 of the Act is
attracted. Any illegal or void transaction which is the basis of
revenue entries may give rise to initiation of proceedings for
cancellation of the mutation entries. Moreover, the
proceedings under Section 84C of the Act, 1948 are pending
Page 8 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
and the petitioners are availing remedies under the Tenancy
Act.
12. It was noted by the learned single Judge that an
unregistered Will from an unknown person was obtained by
the petitioners to obtain the status of an agriculturists and
after death of the said testator, even the Will was disputed by
the legal heirs. The petitioners moved probate application
and after receiving the order, mutation entries were made
projecting the petitioners as owners of the land transferred by
way of Will. After getting the Will, the petitioners purchased
other agricultural lands in the same village by way of
registered sale deeds, projecting them as agriculturists and
asserted that there was no violation of Section 63 of the
Tenancy Act.
13. On the question of delay, the learned single Judge has
categorically recorded that the revision proceedings have
been initiated under the Land Revenue Code within a period
of three years from the making of the entries and as such, the
proceedings initiated by the Deputy Collector can not be said
to suffer from any delay, much less gross delay.
Page 9 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
14. The order passed by the learned single judge is sought
to be challenged before us on the grounds agitated
vehemently by Mr. Ashish Shah, the learned advocate
appearing for the appellant, noted and dealt with hereinafter.
15. The Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction at all to initiate
the suo motu proceedings under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat
Land Revenue Rules, 1972 which empowers only the
‘Collector’ to call for and examine the record of any inquiry or
the proceedings or any subordinate revenue officer held under
Rules 106, 107 and sub-rules of Rule 108 for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the regularity, legality or propriety of
any such order. It was argued that since the Rule clearly
confers power upon the ‘Collector only’, the Deputy Collector,
in any case, could not have initiated suo motu revision
proceedings under sub-rule (6) of Rule 108 of the Rules, 1972.
The submission is also made by placing Section 135L of the
Rules, 1972 and the Government Resolution dated 22.07.1992
about the prohibition by the State Government to empower
the Deputy Collector to initiate proceedings under Rule 108 of
the Rules, 1972.
Page 10 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
16. Testing these submissions, suffice it to say that the
above argument is raised for the first time in the LPA by the
learned advocate and it was not argued before the writ court.
No such issue was raised before the learned single Judge. In
an intra-court appeal, we cannot permit the learned advocate
to argue the question of jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector,
when it was not raised before the learned single judge.
Moreover, the submission made by the learned advocate on
the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Deputy
Collector, are not tenable in view of Section 10 of the Gujarat
Land Revenue Code, 1879 which empowers the Collector to
place any of his assistants or deputies in charge of the
revenue administration of one or more of the talukas in his
districts and any Assistant or Deputy Collector, thus, placed in
charge, will have the jurisdiction to perform all the duties and
exercise all the powers conferred upon the Collector by the
Land Revenue Code.
17. With regard to the Government Resolution dated
22.07.1992 directing that the powers under Rule 108 of the
Rules framed under the Land Revenue Code cannot be
Page 11 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
exercised by any other officer other than the Collector, suffice
it to note that the said Resolution was pertaining to Section
135L of the Land Revenue Code which bars the filing of suits
and excludes applicability of Chapter XIII of the code against
the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of
any entry made or omitted or amended in any record or
register that is maintained under Chapter X-A of the Land
Revenue Code. The said Government Resolution cannot be
invoked to raise the issues of inherent lack of jurisdiction of
the Deputy Collector to proceed under Rule 108(6), for the
first time in the present appeal.
18. The second argument vehemently pressed into service
by the learned advocate for the appellant is that there is cross
utilisation of powers by the Deputy Collector. The submission
is that the revenue entries are sought to be cancelled by
invoking the powers under the Tenancy Act, and that the
proceedings for cancellation of mutation entries cannot be
initiated under Rule 108 of the Rules framed under the Land
Revenue Code on the premise of contravention of Section 63
of the Tenancy Act. It was argued by the learned advocate
that the Deputy Collector has committed a grave error of law
Page 12 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
in canceling the mutation entries on the premise that the Will
and the sale deed documents of transfer of title in favour of
the petitioners /appellant herein are hit by Section 63 of the
Tenancy Act. The proceedings, if any, for cancellation of the
mutation entry could have been invoked only after the
proceedings under the Tenancy Act are brought to their
logical end.
19. To deal with these submissions, suffice it to say that the
proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act, 1948 have
already been initiated against the petitioners and they are
pending before the Mamlatdar. As regards the mutation
entries, they are made under the provisions of the Land
Revenue Code and governed by the Rules made thereunder.
Any inquiry into the correctness of the entry, deletion or
addition or insertion of entries can only be conducted under
the Land Revenue Code and the Rules made thereunder. The
powers to cancel or insert mutation entry lies with the
revenue authorities under the Land Revenue Code and the
Rules made thereunder. Rule 108 of the Rules 1972 empowers
the Prant Officer or Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector or
Superintendent of Land Record or Deputy Director of Land
Page 13 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
Record to decide any dispute relating to the mutation entry.
Sub-Rule(5) of Rule 108 provides for appeal against the order
passed by the aforesaid officers under rule 108(1) to higher
officer. Sub-rule(6) of Rule 108 confers revisional powers
upon the Collector to call for the record of any entry made or
the proceeding of any sub-ordinate revenue officer held under
Rule, 106, 107 and sub-rules (1) to (5) of the Rule 108 itself.
All these provisions are pertaining to the mutation entries in
the revenue records.
20. In view thereof, the submission made by the learned
advocate for the petitioners/appellant to assail the action of
the Deputy Collector on the ground of gross violation of
power, is liable to be rejected as misconceived.
21. The third submission made by the learned advocate is
that admittedly the grand-mother of the petitioners was owner
of an agricultural land and revenue entry dated 18.08.1969 in
the name of the grand-mother of the petitioners are part of
the record of this appeal at page No. ’72’ of the paper book.
The contention is that the father of the petitioners has
inherited the agricultural land belonging to the grand-mother
Page 14 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
of the petitioners and was cultivating the same. The
contention is that the petitioners belong to the family of the
agriculturists and acquired the status of being agriculturists
by the mere fact that their grand-mother and father both were
agriculturists. Heavily relying on the Section 2(2) read with
Section 2(6) of the Tenancy Act, 1948, it was argued that the
status of an agriculturist can be given to a person, who
cultivates agricultural land personally and would include any
member of his family, which invariably includes the
petitioners within the definition of the ‘agriculturist’ by the
fact that their father was agriculturist, who cultivated his land
personally.
22. This submission does not detain us for long for the
simple reason that there was nothing on record before the
learned single Judge which would indicate that the petitioners
had acquired the status of agriculturists by operation of law
prior to the execution of the Will on 07.04.1982 by an
unknown person for transfer of his agricultural land. We may
also note the findings returned by the learned single Judge in
paragraph No.’9′ of the judgment impugned dealing with the
submission made by the learned senior counsel therein :-
Page 15 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
“9. The District Collector, Ahmedabad, by the impugned
order dated 24.02.1997, held that it was evident that the
petitioners’ names had been entered in the revenue records
on the basis of an unregistered disputed will through
Mutation Entry No. 2796 dated 04.12.1987. Thereafter, on
the basis thereof, further purchase of agricultural lands
through Mutation Entry No. 2873 dated 08.11.1988 were
effected. Both of these entries had been cancelled by the
competent authority. Although the petitioners contended that
probate of the will had been obtained, that large
consideration had been paid, and that the proceedings were
barred by limitation, the Collector found that the will was an
unregistered will. The Collector further held that the
transactions resulted in the petitioner attempting to acquire
agricultural land and status of an agriculturist in violation of
the Code. It was held that Section 63 of the Tenancy Act was
attracted. It was also held that any illegal or void transaction
reflected in the revenue record can be revised at any time
and is not protected by limitation. Therefore, the order
passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant cancelling
the mutation entries was legal, proper and required no
interference. Accordingly, the revision application was
rejected by the Collector and the Deputy Collector’s order
was confirmed. Moreover, the petitioners are availing
remedies under the Tenancy Act and proceedings under
section 84(C) of the said Act is pending.”
23. The learned advocate for the petitioners therein had
argued before the writ court that the petitioners were also
Page 16 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
holding agricultural land prior to execution of the
unregistered Will, which was negated by noticing that the said
subject agricultural land was running in the name of Prem
Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and hence the petitioners cannot claim
the status of agriculturists claiming ownership or holding the
said land. The learned single Judge has also noted that if the
case of the petitioners is accepted that they were
agriculturists prior to the execution of the unregistered Will
dated 07.04.1982, then there was no bar for them to enter
into any transaction by way of registered sale deeds. There
was no occasion for the petitioners to obtain unregistered Will
of an unknown person and subsequently purchase other
agricultural lands by way of the sale deeds, which obviously
were purchased on the strength of the status acquired
through the unregistered Will.
24. In any case, the argument made by the learned advocate
for the appellant before us about the petitioners having
acquired the status of agriculturists by mere fact that their
family members were agriculturists, was not pressed before
the learned single Judge. This submission to assail the order
of the learned single judge based on the findings, as noted
Page 17 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
herein above, has also been raised before us for the first time
in the present appeal, which is an intra-court appeal, where
we are concerned with the correctness of the order passed by
the learned single Judge. We, therefore, do not find any
reason to deliberate on the issue raised for the first time
before us.
25. Moreover, the said issue as to whether the petitioners
had acquired the status of the agriculturists prior to
07.04.1982, when an unregistered Will was obtained by them
from an unknown person, is the very issue pending before the
authorities in the proceedings initiated under Section 84C of
the Tenancy Act, 1948. It is open for the appellant to make
his submission before the tenancy authorities and submit
proof of them being agriculturists prior to execution of the
unregistered Will.
26. The last submission vehemently made before us is about
the delay in initiation of the proceedings on which we do not
need to deliberate, for the simple reason that the proceedings
invoking powers of the Rule 108(6) of the Rules framed under
the Land Revenue Code, admittedly, had been initiated on
Page 18 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
10.07.1990 when the show cause notice was issued to the
petitioners. The mutation entries of the Will dated 07.04.1982
was effected on 04.12.1987 and certified on 07.01.1988 only
and the mutation entry of the subsequent sale deeds was
entered into in the year 1988 itself. There was, thus, no delay
much less substantial delay as the proceedings were initiated
almost within a period of about two and half years of the
mutation entries effected in the revenue records. The reliance
placed upon the decisions of this Court deprecating the
initiation of the suo motu revision proceedings after
inordinate delay, will not be of any help to the appellant.
27. With the above, we do not find it a fit case to invoke our
extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to attach any illegality to the orders
passed by the revenue authorities in cancelling the mutation
entries pursuant to long drawn proceedings which was duly
contested by the petitioners.
28. We say so for one more reason that the revenue entries
are only fiscal in nature. They do not confer any right, title or
interest on any person and the cancellation of mutation
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
entries will have no bearing on the substantive rights of the
petitioners in the pending proceedings under Section 84C of
the Tenancy Act.
29. With the above, all other judgments relied on by the
learned advocate, namely in SCA No.6329 of 1986
(Chimanbhai G. Patel v/s. Deputy Collector) decided on
18.03.1999; LPA No.183 of 2018 (Decd. Ghelabhai
Bhagvanbhai & Ors. v/s. Special Secretary (Appeals) & Ors.
decided on 08.02.2018; and SCA No.10293 of 2018 (Thakkar
Yogeshbhai Amritlal s/o. Thakker Amritlal Dhudaji v/s. State of
Gujarat) decided on 03.03.2026, need not to be touched by us.
30. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order
as to costs. The pending Civil Application stands disposed of.
31. It is clarified that since the orders impugned are passed
in a summary proceedings under the Land Revenue Code
pertaining to mutation entries, they do not have any bearing
on the substantive rights of the petitioners/appellant. We,
thus, clarify that any observations made in the orders passed
by the revenue authorities, observations made by the learned
Page 20 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/327/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
single Judge in the judgment impugned or any observations
made by us hereinabove, will not come in the way of the
petitioners in the pending proceedings. All the rights and
contentions of the petitioners are kept open to be agitated in
the substantive proceedings under Section 84C of the
Tenancy Act, which shall be independently dealt with by the
competent authority.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
Page 21 of 21
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 23:59:31 IST 2026
