Bombay High Court
SHRI. NATWARSINH KESHAVBHAI SOLANKIversusSHRI. SHEVANTILAL MANGILAL SHAH AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- AMIT BORKAR
Holding
The Administrator exceeded its jurisdiction; mutation proceedings cannot void a transfer lawfully permitted under Rule 17(2), rendering the confiscation order unsustainable.
Summary
The petitioner obtained permission under Rule 17(2) of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Revenue Administration Rules, 1972 to purchase land, executed a sale deed and secured a mutation entry in his name. Two years later, a respondent sought cancellation of the mutation alleging an earlier unregistered deed, but the Resident Deputy Collector rejected the application. The respondent appealed, and the Administrator, in a revision appeal, declared the transfer void and ordered confiscation of the land. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the Administrator exceeded its jurisdiction as mutation proceedings are limited to recording changes, not determining title validity, and that the earlier statutory permission remained unchallenged. The court held that the Administrator had overstepped its authority and that the confiscation order could not stand.
Issues considered
- Whether the Administrator had jurisdiction to declare a land transfer void and order confiscation in proceedings limited to mutation entry.
- Whether the permission granted under Rule 17(2) of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Revenue Administration Rules, 1972, bars subsequent invalidation of the transfer.
- Whether mutation proceedings can be used to determine the validity of title and impose forfeiture.
Subjects
- mutation
- land confiscation
- administrative jurisdiction
- property law
- revision appeal
- title validity
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Revenue Administration Rules
Judgment
81-WP-4268-14-Final.doc
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SAYALI WRIT PETITION NO. 4268 OF 2014
DEEPAK
UPASANI
Digitally signed by
Natwarsingh Keshavbhai Solanki … Petitioner
SAYALI DEEPAK V/s.
UPASANI
Date: 2026.03.04
16:54:24 +0530 Shevantilal Mangilal Shah and Others … Respondents
Ms. Jyoti Chavan with Ms. Namrata Pangam with Ms. Srushti
Mahadadalkar, for Petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Dedhia, for Respondent no. 3.
Mr. Manoj Badgujar, for Respondent no. 1.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 04, 2026
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The present petition questions the legality of the order
passed by the Administrator in Revision Appeal No. 07 of 2009.
By that order the Administrator directed confiscation of the land
purchased by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner states that the purchase was made only after
obtaining due permission from the competent authority under
the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Revenue Administration Rules,
1972. According to the petitioner, once such permission was
granted and the transaction was carried out on that basis, the
later decision to confiscate the property is not legally sustainable.
1
81-WP-4268-14-Final.doc
4. The record shows that the dispute mainly turns on whether
the authority, while dealing with proceedings relating to
mutation entry, could have gone to the extent of declaring the
transfer void and ordering forfeiture of the land. The petitioner
therefore challenges the impugned order on the ground that the
authority travelled beyond its jurisdiction and ignored the
permission earlier granted under the statutory rules.
5. In order to understand the controversy, it becomes
necessary to set out the facts in some detail. On 02 June 1998
the petitioner, along with the original vendor of the land,
submitted an application before the Collector of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli seeking permission under Rule 17(2) of the Dadra and
Nagar Haveli Land Revenue Administration Rules, 1972. Such
permission was required before the proposed transfer could be
completed. The Collector examined the application and by an
order dated 28 November 1998 granted the necessary
permission. After obtaining the said permission, the parties
proceeded with the transaction and a sale deed came to be
executed on 24 November 1998. On the basis of this transaction,
the petitioner then applied for mutation of his name in the
revenue record. The application for mutation was made on 18
December 1998 and the revenue authorities effected the
mutation on the same day. As a result, the petitioner’s name came
to be entered in the revenue record as the holder of the property.
6. For some time the matter remained undisputed. However,
2
81-WP-4268-14-Final.doc
nearly two years later, on 21 November 2000, respondent No. 1
submitted an application before the Resident Deputy Collector
seeking cancellation of the mutation entry. The main contention
raised in that application was that an earlier sale deed dated 10
April 1996 was not registered and therefore the subsequent
transfer was not valid.
7. The Resident Deputy Collector examined the matter and by
order dated 26 January 2009 rejected the application. The
authority found no sufficient ground to disturb the mutation
entry that had already been made in favour of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by that decision, respondent No. 1 preferred Appeal
No. 07 of 2009 before the Administrator.
8. The Administrator, by order dated 12 February 2014,
allowed the appeal. The Administrator took the view that the
transfer in favour of the petitioner was void. On that basis the
Administrator went further and directed confiscation of the land.
This order has given rise to the present petition.
9. When the record of the case is examined carefully, certain
aspects become clear. The documents show that before executing
the sale deed, the petitioner and the vendor had approached the
Collector and sought permission under Rule 17(2) of the Rules of
1972. That permission was in fact granted by the Collector on 28
November 1998. The transaction was therefore carried out only
after the competent authority had granted approval. It is also
important to note that the permission granted by the Collector
3
81-WP-4268-14-Final.doc
has never been challenged before any competent forum. That
order continues to remain in force. As long as that permission
stands, the transaction carried out on the basis of such
permission cannot be lightly ignored.
10. Another important aspect relates to the nature of the
proceedings before the authority. The proceedings originated
from a dispute regarding mutation entry. Mutation proceedings
are meant for recording changes in the revenue record. They are
not intended to determine the validity of title or to declare a
transfer void. In spite of this limited scope, the appellate
authority proceeded to hold that the transfer in favour of the
petitioner was void and further directed forfeiture of the land.
Such a direction travels far beyond the purpose of mutation
proceedings. If the permission granted on 28 November 1998 had
not been set aside by a competent authority, there was no
occasion to ignore its effect and declare the transaction invalid in
mutation proceedings.
11. For these reasons, the order directing confiscation of the
petitioner’s land appears difficult to sustain in law. The authority
dealing with mutation entries could not have exercised such
drastic power, particularly when the statutory permission for
transfer remained valid and unchallenged.
12. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause
‘A’.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
4
Checking your session…