Gujarat High Court
Shantiben Kamashibhai Vaghri vs Special Secretary(Appeals) on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1128/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 16/10/2025
Pronounced On : 10/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1128 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SHANTIBEN KAMASHIBHAI VAGHRI
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY(APPEALS), & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 10,17,18,19,20,3,4,5,6,8
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 11,12,13,14,15,16,2,7,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the
following reliefs:-
“27(A) YOUR LORDSHIP’S may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside order dated 29.11.2017 passed in
Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/232/2016 by the respondent
no.1- Special Secretary Revenue Department(Appeals). Ahmedabad
as well as order dated 17.01.2016 passed by learned District
Collector in Case No. LB/RA No. 722/2014 as well as order dated
22.07.2014 passed by learned Deputy Collector in Case No.Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1128/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
RTS/APPEAL/CASE NO. 28/2013 as well as order dated 27.06.2012
passed by Circle office of cancelling mutation entry nos. 8924, 8925
and 8926;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIP’S may kindly be please to direct the concerned
respondent authority to certify the mutation entry nos. 8924, 8925
and 8926 and may further kindly be pleased to declare that the
action on the part of respondent authority of cancelling the said
mutation entries illegal. unlawful. arbitrary. without jurisdiction and
bad in eyes of law;
(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition.
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to the stay implementation.
operation and execution of the order dated 29.11.2017 passed in
Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/AMD/232/2016 by the respondent
no.1- Special Secretary Revenue Department(Appeals). Ahmedabad
as well as order dated 17.01.2016 passed by learned District
Collector in Case No. LB/RA No. 722/2014 as well as order dated
22.07.2014 passed by learned Deputy Collector in Case No.
RTS/APPEAL/CASE NO. 28/2013 as well as order dated 27.06.2012
passed by Circle office of cancelling mutation entry nos. 8924, 8925
and 8926 and further be pleased to direct the respondents herein to
maintain status quo with regards to the land in question in the
interest of justice;
D) Any other and further relief that may deem fit by this Hon’ble
Court thin the interest of justice;”
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition is
that the petitioner purchased agricultural land situated at Mouje
Hansalpur (Shere), Taluka Viramgam, District Ahmedabad, bearing
Survey No. 155 paiki. The land was purchased through three
registered sale deeds dated 28.02.2006, 31.03.2006, and
19.01.2007. On the basis of these sale deeds, mutation entries No.
8924, 8925 and 8926 came to be posted in the revenue record. The
Circle Officer, Viramgam, thereafter cancelled mutation entries No.
8924, 8925 and 8926 on the ground that the petitioner was not an
agriculturist and that the transactions were in violation of the
provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to asPage 2 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1128/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
“Fragmentation Act” for brevity] and Section 135D(8) of the Gujarat
Land Revenue Code [hereinafter referred to as “Code” for brevity].
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Deputy
Collector, Viramgam (Prant), which came to be rejected by order
dated 22.07.2014, thereby confirming the cancellation of the
entries. The petitioner then preferred Revision Application before
the District Collector, Ahmedabad, which was rejected by order
dated 17.01.2016. Against the order of the District Collector, the
petitioner filed Revision Application before the Special Secretary
(Appeals), Revenue Department (SSRD) which came to be rejected
by order dated 29.11.2017. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
3. Mr. Vimal A. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondent No.1-SSRD failed to appreciate that the
lower authorities have wrongly invoked provisions of the Gujarat
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as
“Tenancy Act” for brevity] despite the admitted fact that the
petitioner is an agriculturist holding agricultural lands (Survey Nos.
988, 742 and 927 of village Dhoda). Hence, the basic premise that
the petitioner was not an agriculturist is ex-facie incorrect,
unsupported by record, and without jurisdiction. He further submits
that the authorities below had no power to hold breach of provisions
of other enactments while exercising jurisdiction solely under the
Code. Reliance is placed on 2006(3) GLR 1982, wherein it was held
that while considering an application under Section 65 of the BLRC,
the Collector cannot simultaneously exercise powers under the
Fragmentation Act. Cross-utilization of powers under two different
revenue enactments is impermissible and orders passed by mixing
jurisdictions are void. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that no proceedings have ever been initiated under Section 9 of thePage 3 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1128/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
Fragmentation Act or Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. He further
submits that Section 135C of the Code mandates the revenue
authorities to mutate entries reflecting acquisition of rights under a
registered sale deed, and persons acquiring rights through a
registered document are exempt from reporting obligations. Thus,
the authorities were duty-bound to certify the mutation entries. The
learned SSRD also failed to consider that the order of the Circle
Officer was passed in breach of principles of natural justice. None of
the contentions or judicial authorities cited by the petitioner have
been dealt with.
4. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent authorities respectfully submit that the present
petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed as the
impugned orders have been passed by the competent authorities in
accordance with the provisions of the Code and after due
consideration of the material on record; that mutation on the basis
of the sale deeds dated 28.02.2006, 31.03.2006, 19.01.2007 was
rightly refused owing to breach of the Fragmentation Act, which
cannot be ignored at the stage of revenue proceedings; that
mutation is not a matter of right when the underlying transaction is
contrary to law; that no arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction or violation
of constitutional provisions is made out so as to warrant
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. He, therefore,
submits that the present writ petition be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the
documents and considered the submissions.
6. The Deputy Collector, by order dated 22.07.2014 held that,
upon examining the dispute application filed under Rule 108(5) ofPage 4 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1128/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
the Land Revenue Rules concerning Survey No. 155 of village
Hansalpur (Shere), although the petitioner claimed title over
different portions of land aggregating 0-35-99 gunthas on the basis
of three registered sale deeds and consequent Mutation Entry Nos.
8924, 8925, and 8926, there was no material on record to show
whether the land was irrigated, whether prior permission for
fragmentation had been obtained, or whether the applicant was a
registered farmer, which were mandatory requirements for
certification of the entries, and therefore the Circle Officer had
rightly rejected the said mutation entries vide order dated
27.06.2012, warranting rejection of the dispute application and
confirmation of the said order.
7. The District Collector, Ahmedabad, by order dated 17.01.2016
held that although the petitioner’s name had been sought to be
mutated on the basis of sale deeds through Mutation Entry Nos.
8924, 8925 and 8926 dated 10.05.2012, the said entries had rightly
been rejected earlier by the Circle Officer on 27.06.2012 and by the
Deputy Collector on 22.07.2014, as the transactions involved
purchase of fragmented portions of Survey No. 155 admeasuring
3,599 sq. m. out of a total area of 24,270 sq. m., which were
repeatedly attempted to be mutated despite earlier cancellations on
the same ground, and in the absence of prior permission for block
division as required under the Fragmentation Act, the certifying
authority was barred under Section 135(D)(8) of the Code from
certifying such entries, and therefore the transfer was clearly in
violation of the Fragmentation Act, warranting rejection of the
revision application and confirmation of the order dated 22.07.2014.
8. The Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) vide
order dated 29.11.2017 held that, although the petitioner soughtPage 5 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1128/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
mutation of her name through Mutation Entry Nos. 8924, 8925 and
8926 on the basis of registered sale deeds and amendment
documents relating to Survey No. 155 of village Hansalpur (Shere),
the said entries had been rightly rejected earlier by the Circle
Officer, Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and Collector, as the same
transaction had repeatedly been attempted to be mutated despite
prior rejections on the ground of statutory violation, and it was
established from the record that Survey No. 155 was a consolidated
block admeasuring about 23,270 sq. m., out of which fragmented
portion admeasuring 3,599 sq. m. was transferred without obtaining
mandatory prior permission for block division under the
Fragmentation Act, and in view of Section 135-D(8) of the Code, the
Government Circular dated 10.06.2013 governing pre-2013
violations, and the clear breach of the Fragmentation Act. The
certifying authority was legally justified in refusing certification of
the mutation entries. The judgments relied upon by the applicant
were inapplicable, no ground was made out for interference with the
Collector’s order dated 17.01.2016, and therefore the revision
application was rejected while affirming the earlier orders.
9. In the present case, there appears to be violation of the
Fragmentation Act in much as the land purchased by the petitioner
forms part of block admeasuring 24,270 sq. mtrs. Further, it has
come on record that the subject land in question was earlier also
tried to be mutated in the revenue records as a fragmentation
piece. The same was refused by the revenue authorities earlier also.
Prima facie, the petitioner does not seem to have taken prior
permission in respect of purchase. In the present case, the revenue
authorities have come to the prima facie conclusion that there
appears to be violation of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act
and therefore, the mutation entries have been refused by the
revenue authorities.
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1128/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
10. This Court in the case of Thakore Varvaji Talaji v. Collector
& District Magistrate, Mehsana, 2014(2) GLR 1122 was called
upon to examine the scope and applicability of Section 135D(8) of
the Code and, in particular, the extent of the certifying officer’s
power to refuse certification of a mutation entry. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment are thus:-
“7. Sub-section (8) of Sec. 135D on which reliance has been
placed on behalf of the respondents reads thus:
“(8) Where the certifying officer has a reason to believe that
such mutation entry violates or contravenes any of the
provisions of the Act or any other Act, he shall not certify
such entry and shall intimate the same with reasons in
writing to the person concerned.”
8. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is apparent that
by virtue of the said provision, the Mamlatdar is empowered not to
certify a mutation entry if he has reason to believe that such
mutation entry violates or contravenes any of the provisions of the
Act or any other Act. The mutation entry would violate any provision
of law provided the acquisition of right which is sought to be
entered vide the said entry is contrary to any provision of law. In
other words, if the Mamlatdar finds that there is a breach of any law
which would render the transaction itself illegal or unlawful,
whereby the mutation entry would violate the provisions of the
Code or any other Act, resort can be made to sub-sec. (8) of Sec.
135D of the Code. But for breach of any other provision of law,
which has no direct relation to the validity of the
transaction/acquisition of right, the Mamlatdar cannot refuse to
certify an entry. In the facts of the present case, the deficiency in
payment of stamp duty in respect of the Power of Attorney would
not render either the transaction in question or the mutation entry
violative or being in contravention of any of the provisions of the
Code or any other Act. Thus, in respect of any ancillary breach,
which has no direct bearing to the transaction in question, resort
cannot be made to sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 135D of the Code. In the
opinion of this Court, such provision would be applicable where
there is a breach of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 or such
other Act which would render the transaction itself invalid. . . .”
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:32:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1128/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
11. The contention of the petitioner that the revenue authorities
have exercised powers under another enactment while dealing with
RTS proceedings cannot be accepted in view of the express
language of Section 135D(8) and the interpretation placed by this
Court in Thakore Varvaji Talaji (supra).
12. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner laying down that RTS authorities cannot take into
consideration breaches of other enactments were rendered prior to
the amendment of Section 138(8) of the Code in the year 2010. In
the present case the impugned action of cancelling the mutation
entries was taken in the year 2012. In view of the statutory
provisions and the judgment of this Court in Thakore Varvaji
Talaji (supra), the decisions relied upon are not applicable in the
present case.
13. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the revenue
authorities were justified in invoking Section 135D(8) of the Code
and in refusing to certify and further cancelling the mutation entries
in view of prima facie violation of provisions of the Fragmentation
Act. The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity
warranting interference.
14. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to
costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by CHANDRASHEKHAR MEHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 20:32:50 IST 2026
