Research References - West's Key Number Digest, Public Lands 114(2)
In a proper case, a patent may relate back from the time of issuance to the time of inception of the patentee's claim to the land.

The doctrine of relation is applicable to public land transactions under a federal patent. ¹  When necessary to give effect to the intent of the statute or to cut off intervening claimants, the patent is deemed to relate back to the time of the inception of the patentee's claim to the land. ²    When the doctrine applies, the last proceeding which consummates the conveyance of the public land is held to take effect by relation back as of the day when the first proceeding was had.  ³This relation back is also effective in favor of persons to whom the claimant has assigned or transferred rights in the land before the issuance of the patent. ⁴

In applying the doctrine of relation back, the patent has been regarded, under the particular circumstances, as relating back to the date of the initiatory act, ⁵  such as the date of the entry, ⁶  to the date of a conveyance or deed, ⁷   to the first qualifying act which definitively located the boundaries of the claimed land so as to legitimately bar others from entering, ⁸ and to the inception of the equitable right upon which title is based. ⁹

On the other hand, a title by relation extends no further backward than the inception of the equitable right. ¹⁰  A patent cannot cut off previously vested rights in the patented property, ¹¹  and the doctrine of relation never carries a patent back to the date of any entry or claim other than that on which it is issued. ¹²

The right to claim the benefit of the doctrine of relation may be lost by a claimant's want of due diligence. ¹³

§250  CONCLUSIVENESS:  ORDINARILY, A PATENT IS CONCLUSIVE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN A COURT OF LAW.

While a patent is not subject to collateral attack,¹  and certain direct remedies  are applicable with respect to patents, ²  when the appropriate agency has jurisdiction to dispose of the land, a patent therefor is both the judgment and a conveyance of the legal title to the land. ³  Unless it is void on its face, ⁴a patent is conclusive in a court of law ⁵ as against the government ⁶ and, with limited exceptions, is unassailable and not rebuttable. ⁷  

§251   EQUITABLE NATURE OF REMEDY; REQUIRED INTEREST -

The remedy for erroneous issuance of a patent for public lands is a direct equitable proceeding to set the patent aside or subject it to the rights of the person equitably entitled to the land.

The remedy for the wrongful and erroneous issuance of a patent for public lands is by a direct equitable proceeding to set the patent aside of subject it to the rights of the person equitable entitled to the land. ¹

A patent conveying land that was a part of the public domain cannot be attacked or impeached by a person having no interest in the land. ²  The mere fact that the patentee was not entitled to the patent does not entitle an adverse claimant successfully to attack a patent unless claimant shows that the claimant was entitled to receive a patent.³  Judicial relief is not available to a private person who fails to exhaust the available administrative remedies. ⁴

The Quiet Title Act may apply to an action to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, ¹  including actions predicated on United States land patents, ²  subject to an exception retaining United States sovereign immunity for actions pertaining to Indian Lands. ³  Under the Act, a plaintiff challenging the validity of government patents to a third party must first establish that the plaintiff is entitled to the disputed lands. ⁴

A person may be entitled to relief in the form of quieting title to land, as against the patentee, and enjoining the patentee from asserting title. ⁵  Likewise, in a proper case, the patentee may bring an action to quiet the patentee's title.⁶

LACHES; LIMITATIONS.

The right to maintain a suit to quiet title to lands held or claimed under patent from the government may be barred by limitations ⁷ or laches.⁸  Limitation may not apply to a quiet title action under state law even though the action involves a federal patent. ⁹

Includes a topic on Public Lands and Property, there's a section on actions attacking the validity of land patents; section 66:470 is “Requirement of privity". This can pertains to Zoning and Planning, as well as other Municipal Ordinances and Required Compelled Actions by You. American Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms has a section on Public Lands. This source is generally used to train Lawyers to create pleadings for law suits.

§ REQUIREMENT OF PRIVITY  66: 470 
A patent to public land which is not void on its face cannot be attacked, either directly or collaterally, by persons who do not show themselves to be in privity with a common or paramount source of title. ^{87.  Burke v. Southern P. R. Co. (1914) 245 US 669, 58 L Ed  1527, 34 S Ct 907.} A party may attack a patent on the ground of fraud or irregularity of issue only if he was in privity with the government in any respect at the time of issuance of the patent. ^{88. Bateman v. Southern Oregon Co.(1914, CA9 Or)  217 F 933.}

§ PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY
There is a presumption that a land patent is valid and passes the legal title. ⁸⁹  Moreover, a patent is presumptive evidence of the performance of every prerequisite to its issuance.  ^{90 Patterson v. Jenks (1829) 27 US 216, 2 Pet 216, 7 L Ed 402; De Guyer v. Banning (1897) 167 US 723, 42 L Ed 340, 17 S Ct 938; Ross v. Stewart (1918) 227 US  530, 57 L Ed  626, 33 S  Ct 345.}   However, a patent is not evidence of the date of entry.  ^{91. Bigelow v Chatterton (1892, CA8 Minn) 51 F 614.}
All reasonable presumptions are indulged to uphold the actions of the officers of the Bureau of Land Management entrusted with the supervision and control of the various proceedings required in issuing land patents.  ^{92. Lee v. Johnson (1885) 116 US 48, 29 L Ed 570, 6 S Ct 249.}   All grants of public land and acts of public officers in issuing warrants and ordering surveys, when purported to have been made in an official capacity and by public authority, are presumed to have been legitimate exercises of authority.  ^{93. Sabariego v Maverick (1888) 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 361.}     For example,  it is presumed that a register who makes a change in a patent does so in the course of his official duties and a party who attacks the act as illegal must prove it to be so.  ^{94. Lea v. Polk County Copper Co. (1859) 62 US 493, 21 How  493, 16 L Ed 203.}  However, if the Bureau of Land Management had no jurisdiction to convey the public land, there is no presumption of conclusiveness of the patent.  ^{95. Oregon S. L. R.R. v. Stalker (1908) 14 Idaho 362, 94 P 56, affd 225 US 142, 56 L Ed  1027, 32 S Ct 636.}

♦ AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE LEGAL FORMS SECTION 222 Summary Land Registration

♦ AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE LEGAL FORMS SECTION 222.10 Withdraw Title of Registered Lands from Registration

♦ CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM: on the Term: "Domicile"

♦  RELATION BACK THEORY, both Texas and U.S. :

♦ TEXAS JURISPRUDENCE, 3RD: Treatment of "relation back" doctrine

♦ AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, 2ND ED. Index entry for the term "Relation Back". 

   As you can see it is used in many different contexts and is not covered in one topic entry.

♦ "RELATION BACK" IN WORDS AND PHRASES.    This source lists state and federal cases that "define" legal terms.

♦ Excerpt by permission of Author Daniel Schinzing for "The State of Texas is a Liar"

♦ Historical Highlights of Public Land Management 1962 BLM Book

♦ Great Link for all BLM Publications  Library of Congress: Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK) featuring BLM's Public Land Documents (745 selections)

♦You will find the United States Statutes at Large for 1789 through 1950 in text-searchable PDF files at the Library of Congress web site here:

♦ You will find the Department of Interiors Solicitor General Decisions here ... starting with the first being in July of 1881- June of 1883 and going through No. 101:  January 1994 to December 1994. 

♦ You will find the Federal Register Volumes 1 - 58  (1936 - 1993)  archives available here for download.

♦ You will find the more recent volumes, since 1950, at the Government Printing Office web site here:

♦ Alabama Constitution & Codes, Patents and Contracts

♦ Land Patent A Contract_Zavala County Appraisal District Case

♦ American Jurisprudence_Land Patent_US Law

♦ Supreme Court Digest Public Lands and Property Grants

♦ Congressional Record October 23, 2000, concerning the concerns the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty and the Mexican War of 1845–46.  Utah Territory has been a portion of the Mexican cession resulting from the Mexican War of 1845–46. U.S. Brigadier General of the Army of the West, Stephen Watts Kearney, instituted an interim rule, commonly referred to as ‘‘Kearney’s Code,’’ over the ceded area pending formal treaty arrangement between the U.S. and Mexico. The Mexican cession was formalized two years later with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848.
 

Forever!