Revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to cancel mutation entries derived from transactions that are designed to circumvent the statutory restrictions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and such revisional proceedings are valid if initiated within a reasonable timeframe, typically considered to be three years.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

“22(A) The Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures ‘G’ and ‘H’ hereto; and consequently holding that the petitioners are entitled to hold the land in dispute virtue of the will executed in their favour at Annexure'A' hereto;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the impugned orders at Annexures ‘G’ and 'H' hereto; and be further pleased to stay further proceedings, if any, initiated pursuant to the said orders;

(C) Such other and further relief or reliefs as may be deemed just and expedient in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may of kindly be granted;

(D) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.”

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition is that the land bearing Survey No. 1525, Hissa No. 158 admeasuring 35 gunthas of Village Ognaj, Taluka Daskroi, - District - Ahmedabad originally belonged to Baldevbhai Khodabhai Vaghela, who bequeathed it to the petitioners by a Will dated 07.04.1982 and passed away on 09.05.1987. Based on the Will, Mutation Entry No. 2796 was made on 04.12.1987. Separately, the petitioners purchased other lands bearing Survey Nos. 559, 560, 561, 563, 564/1 and 564/2 of the same village by a registered sale deed dated 04.11.1988, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No. 2873 was made on 08.11.1988 and certified on 09.12.1988. Revisional proceedings were initiated in respect of Entry No. 2796, and by order dated 30.08.1991, the Deputy Collector cancelled the entry, which was confirmed by the Collector on 25.08.1992. On revision, the Special Secretary remanded the case for fresh hearing. Upon remand, the Deputy Collector issued notice on 17.01.1996 not only for Entry No. 2796 but also for Entry No. 2873 and by order dated 31.07.1996 cancelled both entries on the ground of violation of Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as “Tenancy Act” for brevity]. The Collector dismissed the petitioners’ revision application on 24.02.1997, leading to the present petition before the High Court, in which interim status quo was granted on 31.03.1997.

3. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned senior counsel along with by Mr. Ashish Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Will was executed in accordance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and once probate was granted, the validity and effect of the Will attained finality and was binding on all authorities, including revenue authorities, who had no jurisdiction to disregard or sit in appeal over the same. It is further submitted that the revenue authorities, while exercising powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code [hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for brevity], could not ignore or override the mandate of the Central legislation, namely the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The action of cancelling mutation entries by disregarding the Will and the probate amounts to bypassing parliamentary law and is therefore wholly without authority of law. The authorities also erred in acting solely on the basis of a Government Circular dated 27.05.1992, which cannot prevail over statutory provisions or judicial orders, particularly when the said Circular itself was under challenge before this Hon