Revenue Authorities Cannot Annul Registered Sale Deeds Or Exercise Suo Motu Powers After Long Delay: Gujarat High Court
Court sets aside order vesting land in State after 11-year delay, holding revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time and title under a valid sale deed cannot be nullified in revenue proceedings
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court noting a 11-year delay has held that revenue authorities cannot annul a registered sale deed or vest land in the State through revenue proceedings, particularly when action is initiated after an unreasonable delay. It further reiterated that revenue authorities cannot unilaterally annul a registered conveyance, even where fraud or breach is alleged.
Placing reliance on precedents including Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Another v. D. Narsing Rao And Others (2015) 3 SCC 695, the Court observed that even where a statute does not prescribe a limitation period, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. The Court said that such belated exercise of such powers can disturb settled rights and create uncertainty in property transactions.
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi observed, “…exercise of suo motu powers by the revenue authority or authorities, after an unreasonable, long delay is legally contentious, particularly because it can disrupt settled positions and create third-party rights for individuals who acted in good faith based on the previous state of affairs. While suo motu powers are essential for delivering justice in public interest, judicial precedents highlight that they cannot be exercised at any time, but rather within a reasonable period to protect these third-party interests. Ordinarily, when a long delay occurs, subsequent transactions often happen, such as property sales, acquisitions, or career developments, which are valid when made. A belated suo motu decision might revoke these, causing irreparable loss to innocent parties. The revenue authority cannot exercise the revisional powers in a casual manner whenever it wants to be, irrespective of the period of limitation, which even otherwise, not vested to it. Exercise of any such power should be within the realm of the provisions of the statute”.
“Lastly, the entry was mutated in the revenue record in the names of the writ applicants on the basis of an entirely legal and valid sale deed being executed upon payment of amount of total sale consideration. Thus, ordering the land of an individual being purchased by executing the registered sale deed, to be vested to the Government by the concerned revenue authority would ultimately, amount to annulment of the sale deed. It is a settled law that the revenue authorities, cannot unilaterally annul sale deeds even if fraud is alleged; such matters must go to a civil court”, the Bench noted.
Advocate Kitty S Mehta appeared for the petitioner and Surbhi Bhati, Asst. Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners had purchased agricultural land in Surendranagar district through a registered sale deed in 1990 from the legal heirs of the original holder. Their names were subsequently entered in the revenue records through Mutation Entry No.650 in 1991, which was certified in 1992.
However, in 2003 nearly 11 years after the mutation entry was certified, the Assistant Collector initiated suo motu proceedings alleging that the land was “new tenure land” and that the transfer had been made without permission. The authority eventually ordered the land to vest in the State Government, a decision later upheld by the Collector and the Special Secretary (Appeals).
Therefore, the Court considering the facts in the matter held that the initiation of suo motu proceedings after an unexplained delay of more than a decade was arbitrary and contrary to settled principles governing revisional powers.
It noted that where long delays occur, subsequent transactions and developments may have already taken place based on the existing legal position, and reopening them later could cause irreparable harm to innocent parties acting in good faith.
The Court further held that the revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by ordering the land to vest in the Government, as doing so effectively amounted to cancelling a registered sale deed. Such disputes must be adjudicated by a competent civil court, which alone has the authority to declare a sale deed void or cancelled, it said.
The Court also observed that the purchasers had relied on revenue records that did not indicate the land to be of “new tenure,” and they had been cultivating the land for decades after purchasing it through a lawful registered transaction.
The Court, thus, holding that the proceedings suffered from gross delay and jurisdictional error, quashed the order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) and the orders of the subordinate revenue authorities, thereby restoring the petitioners’ rights over the land.
Cause Title: Koli Parshottambhai Narsinhbhai & Anr. v. State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary (Appeals) & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:16216]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Kitty S Mehta, Advocate.
Respondent: Surbhi Bhati, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader.