Fraudulent Mutation Entry Is A Nullity, Cannot Confer Legal Rights; Limitation Runs From Date Of Knowledge Of Fraud: Gujarat High Court
Isabella Mariam
The Gujarat High Court Single Bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi held that a revenue mutation entry obtained through a forged power of attorney and suppression of material facts cannot confer legal rights, and any order secured by fraud is a nullity in the eye of law. The Court further held that a challenge to such an entry is not barred by limitation, as the limitation period runs from the date of knowledge of the fraud. The dispute concerned a succession entry mutated in favour of persons who were not direct lineal descendants of the original landowner, who had settled abroad.
The petitions arose from a dispute concerning land bearing Survey No.231 (Old Survey No.224) situated at Village Kandoli, Taluka Jalalpor, District Navsari. The land was purchased by the petitioner’s father through a registered sale deed and recorded as his self-acquired property. After his death in 1977 in South Africa, followed by the death of his wife in 1992, the petitioner relied upon a Will executed in his favour and obtained probate from the Bombay High Court.
In 1984, Entry No.760 was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of a succession claim made by relatives of the petitioner’s father, allegedly supported by a power of attorney. The petitioner challenged the mutation by filing RTS Appeal No.172/2013 before the Assistant Collector, which was dismissed on the ground of delay of 29 years. The Collector allowed the revision and quashed Entry No.760. However, the Special Secretary (Revenue Department) remanded the matter. The present petitions challenged that remand order.
The Court recorded that “the dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No.231 (Old Survey No.224) situated in the sim of Village : Kandoli, Taluka : Jalalpor, District : Navsari and Entry No.760 mutated in the revenue record on 09.06.1984, which was mutated behind the back of the petitioner herein, that too, by misguiding the revenue authorities and by mentioning incorrect facts on the basis of the forged power of attorney.”
It observed that “the private respondents have entered their name in the revenue record by suppressing material facts and by declaring incorrect facts.” The Court further stated that “it is clear that the private respondents have played fraud with the petitioners and by playing it, they have obtained orders in their favour.”
Relying on precedent, A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors. the Court recorded: “It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order… has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings… Fraud and justice never dwell together… Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud.”
The Court further observed: "Thus in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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".
On limitation, the Court stated 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.” It further recorded that “there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the impugned notice.”
Regarding statutory compliance, the Court noted that “without issuance of notice as required under Section 135D of the Revenue Code, entry can never be certified and here in the present case, it has been done so.” It recorded that “no such procedure as required under the law has been followed, therefore, the order of the learned Assistant Collector is non est.”
The Court also observed that “the private respondents are not the direct lineal descendants of Ahmed Ismail Minty.”
The Court ordered that “the present petitions stand allowed.” and “the impugned orders dated 19.07.2016 (posted on 25.07.2016) passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department… are hereby quashed and set aside and thereby the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the learned Collector, Navsari… is restored and accordingly, Entry No.760 is quashed and set aside.”
“The revenue authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate the name of the petitioner herein on the basis of the documents, that may be supplied by him, in accordance with law after following due procedure of law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Jay Trivedi, AGP
Case Title: Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:14448
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No.15609 of 2016 with R/Special Civil Application No.15610 of 2016
Bench: Justice Divyesh A. Joshi
