Fraudulent Mutation Entry Is Void And Can Be Challenged At Any Time:  Gujarat High Court

“Fraud Vitiates Every Judicial And Administrative Act – A Judgment Obtained By Fraud Is A Nullity”, Gujarat High Court holding that a mutation entry obtained by fraud in revenue records cannot be allowed to stand and may be challenged at any stage.

Justice Divyesh A. Joshi set aside the orders of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) which had remanded the dispute for reconsideration and restored the Collector’s order cancelling Mutation Entry No.760 that had been entered in 1984 in favour of persons who were not the lawful heirs of the original owner.

The Court emphasized the well-established legal principle that fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings and any order obtained through fraud is “a nullity and non est in the eyes of law.”

The dispute related to land bearing Survey No.231 (Old Survey No.224) situated in Village Kandoli, Taluka Jalalpor, District Navsari.

The land originally belonged to Ahmed Ismail Minty, the father of the petitioner. It was his self-acquired property, purchased through a registered sale deed. Ahmed Minty later settled abroad and eventually passed away on 12 July 1977 in South Africa, leaving behind his wife and children including the petitioner.

Before his death, he had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner, and probate of the Will was later granted by the Bombay High Court, after the petitioner’s siblings formally relinquished their rights in the property.

However, while the petitioner and his family were residing abroad, a relative named Mohammad Suleman Mangera, who had earlier cultivated the land as a tenant, allegedly misled revenue authorities and managed to mutate a succession entry in 1984.

Through Mutation Entry No.760 dated 09.06.1984, Mangera entered the names of himself and several relatives in the revenue record by allegedly:

“Suppressing material facts, showing an incorrect place of death of the petitioner’s father and relying on a forged power of attorney.”

The entry was certified in 1985 without issuing statutory notice to the legal heirs.

The petitioner came to know about the entry only in 2013, when he returned to India and discovered that the respondents had also initiated tenancy proceedings claiming rights over the land.

Procedural History

After discovering the mutation entry, the petitioner filed RTS Appeal No.172 of 2013 before the Assistant Collector, challenging the entry.

The Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay of nearly 29 years.

The petitioner then filed Revision Application No.158 of 2014 before the Collector, who examined the material and cancelled the mutation entry on 28.01.2015, holding that it had been obtained fraudulently.

However, the private respondents approached the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), who set aside the Collector’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Aggrieved by this remand order, the petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“Fraud Makes Any Order A Nullity” – High Court Relies On Supreme Court Precedent

The High Court found that the mutation entry had been obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of facts, particularly regarding the death of the petitioner’s father and the identity of legal heirs.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., the Court reiterated a fundamental legal principle:

“A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court or authority is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such an order can be challenged at any stage, even in collateral proceedings.”

The Court emphasized that fraud destroys the very foundation of legal proceedings, observing:

“Fraud and justice never dwell together, and even the most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud.”

Therefore, the mutation entry obtained through such fraudulent conduct could not be sustained.

“Delay Cannot Defeat Justice Where Fraud Is Alleged”

A major ground relied upon by the revenue authorities was the delay of nearly 29 years in challenging the mutation entry.

However, the High Court held that delay alone cannot defeat justice when the entry itself was obtained by fraud.

The Court observed that the petitioner and his family had been residing abroad, and the entry had been made behind their back without their knowledge.

The Court explained that:

“The cause of action arises from the date of knowledge of the fraudulent entry and not from the date on which the entry was made.”

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Court emphasized that courts should prioritize substantial justice over technical procedural objections.

“Mutation Entry Certified Without Mandatory Notice Is Illegal”

The High Court also found that the mandatory procedure under Section 135D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code had not been followed.

Under Section 135D, before certifying a mutation entry, the revenue authority must:

• Notify all persons appearing in the record of rights, and
• Give them an opportunity to raise objections.

The Court observed that no such notice had been issued to the petitioner or other legal heirs, even though they were clearly interested parties.

The Court held:

“Certification of mutation entry without issuing notice under Section 135D violates the statutory procedure and renders the entry illegal.”

“Only Direct Lineal Descendants Could Inherit Self-Acquired Property”

The Court further noted that the property was self-acquired property of the petitioner’s father, and therefore succession could only occur through direct lineal descendants.

The persons whose names were entered through Mutation Entry No.760 were not direct descendants of the deceased owner.

The Court clarified that:

“Children, grandchildren and other persons in the direct line of descent alone qualify as lineal descendants, and the private respondents did not fall within that category.”

Therefore, the mutation entry in their favour was clearly illegal.

“Remanding The Matter Was Unnecessary” – High Court

The High Court criticized the decision of the SSRD to remand the matter, observing that the Collector had already examined the entire material and passed a well-reasoned order cancelling the fraudulent entry.

The Court held that remanding the case for reconsideration was unnecessary and unjustified, particularly when the evidence already established the fraudulent nature of the mutation entry.

The Gujarat High Court ultimately allowed the petitions, setting aside the orders of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and restoring the Collector’s order cancelling Mutation Entry No.760.

The Court directed the revenue authorities to mutate the petitioner’s name in the revenue record after following due procedure of law.

The judgment reaffirms two key legal principles: fraud vitiates all proceedings, and procedural delay cannot protect an illegal act obtained through deception.

Date of Decision: 18 February 2026