81-WP-4268-14-Final.doc Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4268 OF 2014 Natwarsingh Keshavbhai Solanki … Petitioner V/s. 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 SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2026.03.04 16:54:24 +0530 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