Mutation entry cancellation must be timely and within revenue powers; authorities cannot decide breaches of special enactments.

Revisional and mutation powers affecting property entries must be exercised within a reasonable time, even where the revenue code prescribes no express limitation. Where a purchaser has acted on a certified mutation entry and altered position, cancellation after about four years was impermissible and the interference was vitiated by delay. Proceedings under Rule 108 are confined to the correctness of the revenue record; revenue authorities cannot cancel an entry by deciding that the underlying transaction violates a special enactment, because that question belongs to the competent authority under that statute. The impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue authorities could cancel a certified mutation entry after an unreasonable delay. (ii) Whether the revenue authorities acting under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules could cancel the entry on the ground that the underlying transaction was contrary to special enactments and thereby exercise powers reserved to the competent authority under those enactments.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue authorities could cancel a certified mutation entry after an unreasonable delay.

Analysis: Revisional power under the Bombay Land Revenue Code must be exercised within a reasonable time even where no express period of limitation is prescribed. Once a purchaser has acted on the certified entry by expending money and altering its position, stale interference with the entry creates a cloud on title and offends the principle that statutory power cannot be exercised after undue delay.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the certified entry after about four years was not permissible and was vitiated by unreasonable delay.

Issue (ii): Whether the revenue authorities acting under Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules could cancel the entry on the ground that the underlying transaction was contrary to special enactments and thereby exercise powers reserved to the competent authority under those enactments.

Analysis: Proceedings under Rule 108 are limited to the revenue record and its correctness. Revenue authorities cannot assume the role of the competent authority under special enactments or cancel an entry merely because they consider the transaction to be inconsistent with another statute. The validity of such a transaction must be examined by the authority empowered under that statute, after following the procedure prescribed therein and giving hearing to affected parties.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the orders cancelling the mutation entry were quashed and set aside, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional and mutation powers affecting property entries must be exercised within a reasonable time and only within the statutory limits of the enabling revenue law; revenue authorities cannot invalidate a mutation entry by adjudicating alleged breaches of a separate special enactment.

---