In a significant ruling on land mutation and fraud, the Gujarat High Court has set aside revenue orders that had revived a decades-old entry in favor of distant relatives. The Court restored the Collector’s decision cancelling the 1984 mutation and directed authorities to enter the rightful heir’s name after following due process.
The case revolved around agricultural land in Kandoli village of Navsari district and a succession entry that was challenged nearly three decades later.
Read also:- Two Women Killed in Acid Attack: Allahabad High Court Modifies Life Imprisonment
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by Suleiman Ahmed Minty, son of late Ahmed Ismail Minty. The land in question was self-acquired property of his father.
Ahmed Ismail Minty had moved abroad and eventually settled in South Africa, where he passed away in 1977. Before his death, he executed a Will in favor of the petitioner. Probate was later granted by the Bombay High Court. Other siblings had also given declarations relinquishing their rights.
However, in 1984, Entry No. 760 was mutated in the revenue records, showing names of other relatives - including the cousin of the petitioner’s father - as successors. The petitioner alleged that this was done by misrepresenting facts, including the place of death of his father, and by suppressing the existence of direct heirs.
He claimed he came to know about this mutation only in 2013 when he returned to India.
Read also:- Karnataka HC Makes Crowd Control SOP Binding Till New Law Is Enacted After Tragedy Concerns
Proceedings Before Revenue Authorities
The petitioner first challenged the mutation entry before the Assistant Collector in 2013. The appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay, noting that the entry had been made nearly 29 years earlier.
On revision, the Collector, Navsari, examined the documents and allowed the petitioner’s plea. The Collector quashed the Assistant Collector’s order and cancelled Entry No. 760.
But the matter did not end there. The private respondents approached the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), who partly allowed their revision applications and remanded the case back to the Collector for fresh consideration.
This remand order was challenged before the High Court.
Court’s Observations on Fraud
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi closely examined the record and found that the land was self-acquired property of the petitioner’s father. The Court noted that the names entered in 1984 were not direct lineal descendants.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., the bench observed:
“A judgment or order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity in the eyes of law.”
The Court held that if material facts are suppressed and incorrect information is supplied to authorities, the resulting order cannot stand.
In this case, the Court found that the father’s death had occurred in South Africa, yet the mutation application mentioned otherwise. The mother of the petitioner was also alive at the time of the 1984 entry. Despite this, her name was not recorded.
The Court concluded that material facts had indeed been concealed.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Upholds Disability Pension for Air Force Veteran, Dismisses Union’s Plea
Delay and ‘Cause of Action’
A key issue was the 29-year delay in challenging the entry.
The High Court observed that the petitioner was residing abroad and claimed to have gained knowledge of the mutation only in 2013. It emphasized that cause of action arises from the date of knowledge, particularly where fraud is alleged.
Quoting Supreme Court precedents on condonation of delay, the Court noted that justice should not be defeated on technical grounds when serious allegations of fraud are involved.
The Court found that the Assistant Collector erred in rejecting the appeal solely on delay without examining the merits.
Violation of Procedure Under Revenue Law
Another crucial aspect was compliance with Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which mandates issuance of notice to interested parties before certifying mutation entries.
The Court noted that no such notice appeared to have been issued before certifying Entry No. 760 in 1985.
It observed that issuance of notice is a “crucial procedural step” and failure to follow this procedure renders the action legally unsustainable.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Slams “Null and Void” Decree, Sets Aside Order Against Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad
Decision
Allowing both petitions, the Gujarat High Court quashed the SSRD’s remand orders dated 19 July 2016. It restored the Collector’s order dated 28 January 2015, which had cancelled Entry No. 760.
The Court directed the concerned revenue authority to mutate the petitioner’s name on the basis of relevant documents, after following due legal procedure.
Rule was made absolute to this extent.
Case Title: Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 15609 of 2016 (with 15610 of 2016)
Decision Date: 18 February 2026
