Fraud Vitiates Revenue Proceedings; Delay Cannot Defeat Rights When Knowledge Is Later Acquired: Gujarat High Court

The Single Judge Bench noted that although the mutation entry had remained unchallenged for almost three decades, the delay could not defeat the petitioner’s rights since the cause of action arose only when he acquired knowledge of the fraudulent entry.

The Court noted that the facts, including the existence of the petitioner’s mother, who was alive at the relevant time were suppressed, and the private respondents were not direct lineal descendants of the original owner.

The Court also clarified that a ‘lineal descendant’ refers to a person in the direct line of descent, such as children or grandchildren. Since the land was self-acquired property of the petitioner’s father and not ancestral property, the private respondents, who were not direct heirs, had no legal claim.

Justice Divyesh A. Joshi thus quashed the SSRD’s orders dated 19-07-2016 while restored the Collector’s order dated 28-01-2015 and accordingly, set aside Mutation Entry No. 760.

While placing reliance on A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Government of A.P. & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 221 observed, “…it is evident that whenever any any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law and such judgment or order is a nullity and non est in the eye of law and it can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings and here in the present case, it is an admitted position of fact that the order by the private respondent from the learned Assistant Collector has been obtained by fraud as material facts have been suppressed and incorrect information were provided with regard to the place of death of the father of the petitioner, which is also evident from the facts of case and the documents produced on record”.

“…it is settled proposition of law that the cause of action would start to be commenced from the date of knowledge and admittedly and it is only in the year 2013, when the petitioner returned back to India, he came to know about mutation of such notice and, thereafter, immediate steps have been taken, however as stated above, the case of the petitioner has been thrown only on the ground of delay but facts of the case clearly goes on to show that there is no delay in challenging the impugned entry...”, the Bench noted.

Advocate Mehul Sharad Shah appeared for the petitioner and Jay Trivedi, AGP appeared for the respondent.

The dispute concerned land bearing Survey No. 231 (Old Survey No. 224) situated at Village Kandoli, Taluka Jalalpor, District Navsari. The land was originally purchased by the petitioner’s father as self-acquired property.

The petitioner’s father had settled abroad and passed away in South Africa in 1977, however, prior to his death, he executed a Will in favour of the petitioner, and probate was granted by the Bombay High Court, later the petitioner’s siblings had also relinquished their rights.

Later in 1984, during the family’s absence from India, a mutation entry (Entry No. 760) was recorded in favour of certain private respondents. The entry was allegedly made by misrepresenting facts, including the place of death of the petitioner’s father, and by suppressing the existence of direct heirs.

The petitioner claimed he became aware of the mutation only in 2013 upon returning to India, after which he immediately initiated RTS proceedings.

Thereafter, the Assistant Collector dismissed the petitioner’s challenge solely on the ground that the entry was being questioned after nearly 29 years.

In revision, the Collector, Navsari, set aside that order and cancelled Entry No. 760 after examining the material on record. However, the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) remanded the matter for fresh consideration. This led to the writ petitions before the High Court.

The Court, on the issue of limitation, held that the cause of action arose when the petitioner acquired knowledge of the fraudulent mutation in 2013.

The Court, relying on principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353  reiterated that procedural delay cannot defeat substantive rights, particularly when fraud is alleged.

It was further noted that notice under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 had not been properly issued before certifying the mutation entry. The Court held that such procedural safeguards are mandatory and failure to comply renders the certification vulnerable.

The Court further directed the revenue authorities to mutate the petitioner’s name in accordance with law after following due procedure.

Cause Title: Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State Of Gujarat & Ors [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:14448]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Mehul Sharad Shah, Advocate.

Respondent: Jay Trivedi, AGP.

Click here to read/download the Judgment