Revenue authorities are strictly limited to fiscal duties during mutation proceedings and cannot adjudicate upon title or the legality of a registered sale deed; they are legally obligated to register entries based on valid registered documents unless a competent civil court annuls the transaction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Revenue Code” for short”), the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the respondent no.4 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/ANAND/131/2014, the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the respondent no.1 in RTS Revision Application No.274/2013; the order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the respondent no.2 in RTS Appeal No.168/2012 and the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 and thereby prayed for restoration of Entry No.11023 in the revenue record.

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. A.B. Patel for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondents.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Patel submitted that the petitioners are the bonafide purchase of the land bearing Survey No.433 admeasuring 1-25-45 Sq.Mtrs. situated in the sim of Village : Vadald, Taluka : Petlad, District : Anand from the original land owner and pursuant thereto, entry was mutated, however, it has been rejected by the respondent no.3, which has resulted into revenue proceedings reached upto this Hon’ble Court.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Patel submitted that the aforesaid land was purchased by the petitioner from one Dahiben, who is the Administrator of the said land, by way of executing registered sale deed on 14.03.2007 on payment of entire sale consideration and on the strength of the said registered sale deed, Entry No.11023 was mutated in the revenue record. He submitted that the said Dahiben was having legitimate right to execute the said land as she got the said land by way of mutation of entry of hereditary and having authority to sale the land, she executed registered sale deed. He submitted that however, the aforesaid entry has been cancelled by the respondent no.3 by an order dated 14.03.2012 on the ground that the said land was falling under the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 , therefore, the Administrator of the said Devsthan cannot execute the sale the land by way of executing registered sale deed, therefore, the said order was challenged by the petitioners before the respondent no.2 by filing RTS Appeal, however by an order dated 22.01.2013, the said RTS Appeal has been dismissed, against which, RTS Revision Application was preferred before the respondent no.1, who by an order dated 15.09.2014, rejected the said Revision Application, therefore, Revision Application was preferred before the respondent no.4, who by impugned order dated 16.02.2016, rejected the said revision application, therefore, all aforesaid orders have been assailed by the petitioners by way of filing present petition.

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Patel submitted that at the time of purchase of the said land, the petitioners have verified all the revenue record and found that the said Dahiben is the owner, occupant and in possession of the land in question and even her name as a disciple of Yogendraprasad Guru was also mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.4864 as Administrator of the said land. He submitted that in fact, the possession of the said land was already handed over to the petitioners long back and they were carrying out agricultural activities thereon since last more than 30 years and, thereafter, they have entered into transaction with the said Dahiben. He further submitted that in fact, there is no temple situated within the periphe