S.135(C) Gujarat Land Revenue Code | Revenue Authorities Must Mutate Entry When Based On Registered Sale Deed: High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that when rights in land are acquired through a registered document under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the revenue authorities are duty-bound to mutate the entry. In doing so the court said that the refusal to restore such entry despite subsequent consent of parties and rectification of defects is “not legally sustainable.”Justice Divyesh A. Joshi referred to Section 135(C) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code which states that when a person acquires a right on any land via succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease etc., he shall make a report of acquisition of such right to the designated officer within three months from the date of such acquisition, and the said designated officer shall at once, give a written acknowledgment of the receipt.The court thus observed:“The language employed in the Section itself crystallized the position of fact that if any document is registered one, in that event… even without issuing notice to the other side straightaway they have to mutate the name of the parties in the revenue record. The language employed in the Statute itself crystallized position of fact and it is the mandate of the Statute to act in a particular manner.”The Court thus quashed the orders of the Deputy Collector, Collector and Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), and restored the revenue entry in favour of the petitioner.The petitioner purchased land at Village Kukvav, Ahmedabad, through a registered sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder of the original owners after paying full sale consideration. Pursuant to the registered transaction, the entry was mutated in the revenue record on 28.11.2007 and certified on 31.01.2008.The petitioner's opponents–Respondent Nos.7 to 10 challenged the mutation before the Deputy Collector, who cancelled the entry citing discrepancies, including absence of consent of one co-sharer and existence of a bank loan entry. The Collector and SSRD confirmed the cancellation, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.Appearing for the petitioner, Advocates Vikram J. Thakor and Robin Prasad submitted that the petitioner had acquired lawful ownership through a registered sale deed and, therefore, under Section 135(C) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the authority was obligated to mutate the entry. They argued that during the proceedings, all alleged defects were rectified by producing a registered consent deed from the concerned co-sharer, who categorically stated that she had “no objection if the said entry mutated in the revenue record… remain(s) as it is.” Appearing for Respondent Nos.7 to 10, Advocate Ashok A. Purohit fairly conceded that disputes had arisen earlier, but the matter had been “amicably settled between the parties,” and a withdrawal pursis had been filed. He submitted that despite this, the Deputy Collector proceeded to cancel the entry on grounds “which were not raised by the appellants,” and since the parties had settled their dispute and received their share, they had “no objection” to restoration of the entry.Learned AGP Jay Trivedi, appearing for the State, submitted that the revenue authorities had initially found discrepancies in the names of parties and existence of loan entries, and therefore passed orders cancelling the mutation. However, he fairly conceded that the dispute was essentially between private parties and that settlement documents and bank clearance had been produced, suggesting that such documents required consideration by the authority. The Court noted that the petitioner had acquired title through a registered sale deed and that the mutation entry was made accordingly. It observed that during the pendency of proceedings, disputes between parties were amicably settled and the concerned co-sharer had executed a registered consent deed confirming that she had “received her share” and had “no objection if name of the purchaser… is to be mutated in the revenue record.”The Court further held that once such documents were produced, the SSRD was “duty bound to assign reasons to accept or not to accept the same,” but had failed to consider the newly produced consent deed and bank clearance. It found that “the said view adopted by the SSRD is not legally sustainable and requires to be quashed and set aside.”Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and restored the revenue entry in favour of the petitioner. Case Title: Babubhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 19693 of 2018Appearance: Vikram J. Thakor and Robin Prasad for the Petitioner; Jay Trivedi, AGP for the State; Ashok A. Purohit and N.V. Gandhi for the Private Respondents.Click Here To Read/Download Order

S.135(C) Gujarat Land Revenue Code | Revenue Authorities Must Mutate Entry When Based On Registered Sale Deed: High Court

Ananya Tangri

Tags