Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes or the validity of testamentary documents in mutation proceedings. Furthermore, mutation based on such documents does not require probate for properties outside presidency towns, and suo motu revision must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “Revenue Code” for short), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the respondent no.1 – Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/NARMADA/30/2016 and the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 – Collector in Land/Entry/ Review/ Case No.55/2013 and thereby prayed for restoration of Entry No.1395 dated 19.02.2007 as well as subsequent entries in the revenue record.

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Vimal Purohit Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah for the respondent nos.1 to 4. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.5.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Vimal Purohit referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the land bearing Survey No.283 situated in the sim of Village : Agar, Taluka : Tilakwada, District : Narmada was originally belonging to one Rohit Dhanabhai Virabhai, who during his lifetime, had bequeathed “Will” in favour of his nephew i.e. the respondent no.5 herein as the Rohit Dhanabhai Virabhai was not having straight line legal heirs. He submitted that after sad demise of said Dhanabhai Rohit in the year 2007, Entry No.1395 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 19.02.2007 on the basis of the Will produced by the respondent no.5 herein and thereby, name of the respondent no.5 came to be mutated in the revenue record and the said entry was also certified on 04.04.2007 and thus, the name of the respondent no.5 was running in the revenue record. He submitted that thereafter, the respondent no.5 herein had sold out the said land to one Parshottambhai Karshanbhai Desai by way of executing registered sale deed on 18.05.2010 and on the basis of the said registered sale deed, Entry No.1629 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 24.02.2011, which was subsequently certified on 04.05.2011. He submitted that thereafter, the said Parshottambhai Karshanbhai Desai had sold out the said land to Rakeshbhai Kalubhai Dhameliya and Bharatbhai Bachubhai Dhameliya by way of executing registered sale deed and on the basis of the said sale deed, Entry No.1675 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 24.06.2011 and subsequently certified also on 01.08.2011. He submitted that thereafter the aforesaid persons have sold out the land to the petitioner herein by way of executing registered sale deed on 13.03.2012 and on the basis of the said registered sale deed, Entry No.1712 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 13.03.2012, which was subsequently certified on 18.04.2012 and, thereafter, the petitioner became to the absolute owner and occupier of the land in question. He submitted that in fact, the petitioner was earlier known as “Bhikhubhai” but he had changed his name from “Bhikhubhai” to “Bhaveshbhai”, for which, necessary procedure was also followed by him including by publishing it in the Government Gazette and on the basis of said Government Gazette, he applied before the revenue authority for rectification of his name from “Bhikhubhai” to “Bhaveshbhai” and accordingly, Entry No.1747 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 29.01.2013. He submitted that howe