Interim Relief & Status Quo Granted in Land Revenue Mutation Dispute — Letters Patent Appeals Admitted Before Division Bench
Three connected Letters Patent Appeals (LPA Nos. 469, 470 and 471 of 2017) arose from Special Civil Applications challenging an order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (SSRD), Gujarat. The dispute concerned revenue mutation entries bearing Nos. 1534 (dated 26.03.1993) and 1643 (dated 30.08.1993), which had been made in favour of the appellant.
After over 18 years, the Deputy Collector allowed appeals filed by the private respondent and directed correction of these long-standing mutation entries. The order was confirmed by the Collector. When the matter was taken before the SSRD in revision, the revisions were permitted to be withdrawn subject to a condition. The SSRD accepted the conditional withdrawal. The learned Single Judge, however, set aside the SSRD order and issued a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Deputy Collector from hearing the RTS Appeal Nos. 182 of 2016 and 185 of 2016.
- Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in issuing a Writ of Prohibition against the Deputy Collector, thereby blocking the revisional authority from hearing the matter on merits.
- Whether the SSRD’s order permitting conditional withdrawal of the revisions was valid, and what the appropriate course was once such a condition was challenged.
- Whether the mutation entries made in 1993 — and undisturbed for 18 years — could be subjected to correction through the appeals process at such a belated stage.
The Division Bench, headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, took a prima facie view that when the SSRD permitted conditional withdrawal of the revisions and the condition itself was being challenged, the matter ought to go back to the revisional authority for adjudication on merits — not be shut out by a Writ of Prohibition.
The Court held that it was not a fit case for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Deputy Collector from proceeding, and accordingly:
- All three Letters Patent Appeals were admitted and directed to be heard expeditiously.
- Interim relief was granted in terms of paragraph 5(B) of the Civil Applications for stay.
- Status quo was ordered to be maintained with regard to the disputed revenue mutation entries and possession of the land in question, until further orders.
- The Deputy Collector was directed not to proceed further in the matters until further orders of the Court.
- A request by Respondent’s Senior Advocate to stay implementation of the order to approach a higher forum was expressly rejected by the Division Bench.