Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of Hothi Jalubha Godji Pathuji and others, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order dated 25.9.2025 passed by the Learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/KHP/Kutch/11/2021. The revision had been filed against orders of the Deputy Collector dated 20.1.2001 and the Collector, Kutch dated 18.12.2020, which had refused to mutate the petitioners' names in the revenue records qua Survey No. 346. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners and the private respondents (respondent nos. 6 and 7) arrived at a settlement, which was placed on record. The settlement was signed by the parties and their advocates. The petitioners sought quashing of the revisional order and a direction to mutate their names in terms of the settlement. The court heard Mr. A.R. Thacker with Mr. Shivang A. Thacker and Mr. Amit Ghorpade for the petitioners, Mr. Angesh Panchal, AGP for the respondent authorities, and Mr. Meet M. Katira and Mr. Mrugesh A. Barot for respondent nos. 6 and 7. The court noted that the revisional authority had decided the revision on merits without considering the settlement. The court held that once a settlement is arrived at between the parties, the revisional authority ought to have taken the settlement on record and disposed of the revision accordingly. The court quashed the impugned order dated 25.9.2025 and allowed the revision application, directing the revenue authorities to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records in terms of the settlement. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Mutation of Land - Settlement Between Parties - Revisional Authority - The petitioners sought mutation of their names in revenue records qua Survey No. 346 based on a settlement with private respondents. The revisional authority (Special Secretary) dismissed the revision on merits without considering the settlement. The High Court held that once a settlement is arrived at between the parties, the revisional authority ought to have taken the settlement on record and disposed of the revision in light thereof. The impugned order was quashed and the revision was allowed in terms of the settlement. (Paras 1-7) B) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Binding Effect on Revenue Authorities - The settlement between the parties was recorded before the High Court and the parties agreed to abide by it. The High Court directed the revenue authorities to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records in terms of the settlement. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional authority was justified in deciding the revision application on merits ignoring the settlement arrived at between the private parties regarding mutation of land.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the order dated 25.9.2025 passed by the Learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/KHP/Kutch/11/2021 and allowed the revision application. The revenue authorities were directed to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records qua Survey No. 346 in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
Law Points
- Settlement between parties renders revision proceedings infructuous
- Revisional authority must consider settlement before adjudicating on merits
- Writ of certiorari lies to quash orders ignoring settlement
