The case examines whether an interlocutory order condoning delay in revenue proceedings can be challenged in a subsequent revision application and the extent to which revenue authorities can scrutinize the validity of a power of attorney during mutation proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

Mr S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate with Mr Meet D. Kakadia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners, was executed by the original owner on 1.2.2006. Subsequently, the original owner, surreptitiously executed another sale deed in favour of the private respondent, i.e. the respondent no.6.

2. It is submitted that the entry no.3831 was posted in the revenue record; however, the same was not certified on the ground of fragment. Entry no.3919 dated 1.12.2008 in favour of the private respondent, was posted and certified. It is submitted that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, was prior in point of time and therefore, it was not open to the authorities to have rejected the entry of the petitioners only on the ground of fragment and more particularly, when separate proceedings for breach or fragmentation were not initiated.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners, aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Surat, challenging the certification of entry no.3919 dated 1.12.2008 and cancellation of entry no.3831 dated 29.2.2008. It is next submitted that the private respondent, though present, chose not to file any reply, opposing the delay and therefore, the Deputy Collector, accepting the explanation offered by the petitioners, condoned the delay, close to 7 years, vide order dated 26.9.2014. It is submitted that, after hearing the parties, the Deputy Collector passed an order dated 18.4.2015, cancelling the order dated 29.2.2008 of the Circle Officer, Surat, refusing the mutation of entry no.3831. The Deputy Collector, also cancelled the order of the Circle Officer dated 31.3.2009, certifying the entry no.3919.

4. It is further submitted that the private respondent, aggrieved, preferred a revision application before the Collector, Surat; however, the learned Collector did not entertain the same. Against which, revision application was preferred before the learned Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Secretary’) who, while allowing it, remanded the matter to the learned Collector to decide it afresh. It is submitted that according to the learned Secretary, the Deputy Collector, has directed mutation of the entry considering entry no.3654 deleting the “fragment” which aspect, requires reconsideration. The learned Secretary was also of the opinion that the revision, is barred by delay inasmuch as, entry no.3919 of 1.12.2008, has been certified, after 6 years, which aspect also requires reconsideration. The learned Secretary, then has observed about the legality of the power of attorney. It is submitted that the petitioners have raised contentions, namely, that in the RTS proceedings, it would be impermissible to the authorities to go into the legality and veracity of the power of attorney, so also the sale. It is therefore, submitted that the remand on these three grounds by the learned Secretary, would be unjust and improper.

5. It is further submitted that when there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners, which was prior in point of time, the respondent authorities, were obliged to mutate the entry in their favour. The subsequent registered sale deed in favour of the respondent no.6, could not have been considered inasmuch as, the original owner, could not have transferred the ownership when he was not having any title. If at all the private respondent had any grievance, the sale deed in favour of the petitioners, requires to be challenged