Vershibhai Virmabhai Koli vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 7345 Guj

     C/SCA/8031/2018                                JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021



               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8031 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

==========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?
2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?
4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
                       VERSHIBHAI VIRMABHAI KOLI
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AKASH CHHAYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR N P CHAUDHARY(3980) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
                      Date: 01/07/2021
                     ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19/22.03.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e., Special Secretary, Revenue Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the SSRD') and order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 i.e., the District Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the Collector").

2. The issue, involved in the present writ petition, revolves around entry nos.2208 and 2209 in the revenue record and pertains to land bearing survey number 297paiki/2. Vide entry no.2208, the name of the petitioner was mutated with respect to survey no.297 paiki 2 and vide entry no. 2209, the respondent no.4, declared and relinquished his right with respect to survey no. 297 paiki in favour of the petitioner. Both the entries were recorded in the revenue record, that is, village form no. VI

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

on 16.06.2010 and were certified on 18.10.2010; however, the Collector, in suo motu revision has cancelled the entry nos.2208 and 2209, by order dated 29.08.2016. The said order of the Collector was unsuccessfully challenged before the SSRD, hence the present petition.

3. Undisputed facts are that the land bearing survey nos.283, 297 and 311 of village Indhata, Taluka Tharad belonged to Virma Raga Koli, father of the petitioner. After the death of the Virma Raga Koli, entry no.361 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 27.07.1978 recording the heirship and by the very same entry three sisters i.e., Galalbai Virma, Takhubai Virma and Halubai Virma, since they relinquished their rights, their names came to be deleted. Partition took place and hence entry no.1138 came to be mutated on 08.05.2001 recording the partition and as a result whereof survey no.311 came in favour of Okha Hema Virma Koli and Raymal Virma Koli; survey no.297 came in favour of Hemta Virma Koli and Bhava Raimal Koli; whereas survey no.283 came in favour of Vershibhai Virma i.e. the petitioner.

3.1 According to the petitioner, since the petitioner was in possession of survey no.297 paiki/2 and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were in possession of survey no.283, by way of mutual arrangement and after following necessary procedure under Gujarat Land Revenue Code,1879 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), entry nos.2208, 2209, 2210 and 2211 came to be mutated in the revenue record; all dated 16.06.2010 and certified on 18.10.2010, It is the case of the petitioner that with respect to survey no. 297 paiki/2 the name of the petitioner came to entered vide entry no.2208, and vide entry no.2209, the respondent no.4 having relinquished his right over the survey no.297 paiki/2, came to be deleted. That is how, the petitioner acquired right over land bearing survey no.297 paiki/2.

Similarly, entry no.2210 came to be mutated in the revenue record with

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

respect to survey no. 283 whereby, the name of the petitioner came to be deleted, he, having relinquished his right and the names of the respondent nos.4 and 5 came to be mutated. That is how respondent nos.4 and 5 acquired the right over land bearing survey no.283. The aforesaid mutation of entry nos.2208, 2209, 2210 and 2211 all dated 16.06.2010, and certified on 18.10.2010 in the village Form no. VI, were result of the mutual arrangement amongst the family members.

3.2 After a period of five years, the Collector while taking the entry nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision, passed the order dated 29.08.2016, cancelling the entry nos.2208 and 2209 and as a result whereof, the petitioner ceased to have any right over the land bearing survey no.297 paiki/2. The order dated 29.08.2016, was challenged before the SSRD, who, rejected the revision application. Hence, the present petition with the aforementioned prayers.

4. None of the respondents have filed their replies.

5. Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the names of the petitioner and his brothers came to be mutated in the revenue record i.e., village form no.VI, vide entry no.361 and the sisters having relinquished their rights their names were deleted. In the year 2001 partition took place and the land bearing survey nos.311, 297, 283 were partitioned amongst the brothers and their sons. So far as survey no.311 is concerned, the same had gone to the share of Okha Hema Virma and Raymal Virma; Survey no.297 admeasuring 7 acres and 22 ghunthas had gone to the share of Hemta Virma whereas 3 acres and 03 ghunthas had gone to the share of Bhava Raymal; survey no.283 admeasuring 5 acres and 12 ghunthas, had come to the share of the petitioner, Vershi Virma. It is submitted that the said arrangement has been recorded vide entry no.1138 in the revenue record on 08.05.2001.

       C/SCA/8031/2018                              JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021




5.1      It is further submitted that owing to the family arrangement it was

agreed between the family members and more particularly the petitioner being the uncle and respondent nos. 4 and 5 being the nephews that the survey nos. 297 paiki/2 and survey no. 283 shall be exchanged inter se. As per the said arrangement, survey no.297 paiki/2 of respondent nos. 4 and 5 was to be given to the petitioner and he would give his survey no.283 to the respondent nos.4 and 5. It is submitted that petitioner released his right in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and they have also released their rights in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, four entries viz. entry nos. 2208, 2209, 2210 and 2211 came to be recorded in the village form. No VI. It is further submitted that entry nos. 2208 and 2209 were with respect to survey no. 297 paiki/

2. whereas entry no. 2210 and 2211 were with respect to survey no.

283. It is submitted that mutation of all the entries, clearly reflects that the same was because of family arrangement agreeing for inter se exchange of the lands bearing survey nos. 297 paiki/2 and 283.

5.2 It is further submitted that the Mamlatdar after following the due procedure under the provisions of the Code, had certified all the entries on 18.10.2010 and no objection was ever raised by any of the parties against the mutation. It is further submitted that the Collector almost after a period of five years, took only two entries, namely entry nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision and had cancelled the same on the ground that partition can be done only once. It is submitted that the Collector, was of the view that the name of the petitioner could not have been mutated without a registered document and the partition being without the registered deed, the Government has been deprived of the stamp duty. It is submitted that the said findings, are contrary to the documents available on the record since, vide entry nos. 2208, 2209, 2210 and 2211, it was an inter se transfer amongst the family members and therefore execution of deed was not needed.

       C/SCA/8031/2018                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021




5.3      It is submitted that it clearly emerges from the record that the land

was ancestral land and the inter se exchange of land bearing survey nos.283 and 297 paiki/2 was purely a family arrangement therefore, it did not require any execution of the registered document and consequently there arises no question of State Government losing any amount of stamp duty. It is submitted that the Collector ought to have appreciated that the entries were mutated in the revenue record which, was, as a matter of fact, a family arrangement and not a transaction in lieu of any consideration. It is submitted that cancellation of the entry nos.2208 and 2209, has given rise to a situation where the petitioner has been deprived of his right from both the survey numbers, that is, survey no 297 paiki/2 and survey no.283 which had come to his share originally. On the other hand, the respondents nos. 4 and 5 will be benefited by additional parcels of land, that is, of their own as well as of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the order of the Collector deserves to be rectified.

5.4 It is next submitted that as is evident from the record, the entries were mutated and certified in the year 2010 whereas the Collector, has taken them in suo motu revision in the year 2015 with a huge delay of almost five years. It is submitted that the issue of belated exercise of powers is settled by now. The Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in various judgments, have held and declared that if the provisions do not prescribe for any time limit for exercise of a power under a statute, it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time and that such powers, must be exercised within a reasonable time. Therefore, belated exercise of the powers on the part of the Collector, is barred by limitation.

5.5 Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim reported in 1997 (6) SCC

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

71; Premjibhai Nagjibhai Heir and Legal Representative Deceased vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-HC 241760; Ratilal Maganlal Intwala Since Decd. Through Heirs vs. Special Secretary (Appeal) reported in 2013 (3) GLR 2520. It is submitted that this Court, has held that the suo motu revisional powers should be exercised within a reasonable period and a period of seven years, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as reasonable period. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Pushpaben Prabhudas Makhecha vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 237309. It is submitted that once the law is settled, it would be impermissible for the Collector to exercise the suo motu powers beyond a reasonable period and therefore the order of the Collector is erroneous. It is submitted that had it been the case of any fraud alleged, it would have been open to the Collector to have initiated the proceedings; however, it is not nobody's case that there was any fraud perpetrated by the petitioner or the co-owners of the land. Under the circumstances, in absence of any such eventuality available to the authorities, the order dated 26.08.2016, deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone.

5.6 It is further submitted that the order dated 29.08.2016, passed by the Collector, is illegal also because there is a cross utilization of powers. It is submitted that while cancelling the entry under the Code he has exercised the powers under the Registration Act; observing that the Government has been deprived of payment of stamp duty. Such determination on the part of the Collector was impermissible in the wake various pronouncement of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that while exercising the powers under Section 211 of the Code, the Collector could not have assumed the breach of Registration Act, more particularly, when no notice has been issued under the Registration Act, and therefore, the order is against the well

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

settled principle of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5.7 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the Case of Ratilal Maganlal Intwala (supra). It is submitted that this Court, has held that while exercising the powers under the Code, it would not be open to the authorities concerned to decide the issues under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It is submitted that there has been a cross utilization of power by the Collector and therefore, the order is erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that considering the family arrangement and the consequential entries, equity lies in favour of the petitioner because, the petitioner would be deprived of his legitimate right over the survey no.283 as against this the brother and now the nephews will be getting the right over the lands of both the survey numbers.

5.8 It is further submitted that the order of the Collector was carried in revision before the SSRD, who concluded that the Collector has not committed any error and has exercised the powers pursuant to an inquiry undertaken by the team of Investigation Commission, Gandhinagar. It is submitted that the order of the SSRD is also illegal because, the authority concerned has simply adopted the reasoning given by the Collector. It is therefore urged that the Collector and the SSRD have committed gross error in cancelling the entry nos. 2208 and 2209 and therefore both the orders deserve to be interfered with and the petition requires to be allowed.

6. Mr.Akash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while supporting the orders dated 29.08.2016 and 19/22.03.2018, has submitted that no error whatsoever has been committed by the authorities below and the orders do not deserve to be interfered with. It is submitted that the Collector, when found that the entry has been mutated in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner who

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

happens to be the uncle of the respondent nos.4 and 5, the transaction does not come within the exception carved out by the circular dated 05.04.1982. It is submitted that the circular provides for exemption for mutation of entries without insisting for registered documents. It is further submitted that the circular provides for the eventualities viz; when the father effects partition amongst his sons, or ; after the death of the father, if the daughters releases their rights or; when there is no consideration involved in the family partition. It is only in those cases that registered document should not be insisted for certifying the entries.

6.1 It is submitted that the reliance placed on the said circular by the petitioner, is of no help to him. It is submitted that since the transaction has been entered into between the uncle on one hand and the nephews on the other, the same would, directly attract the registration and by not executing the transaction vide registered deed, the State Government, has been deprived of the stamp duty and therefore the Collector, has rightly concluded that the said transaction could not have been executed without the registration deed. It is submitted that the order dated 29.08.2016 and 19/22.03.2018 passed by both the authorities are legal and valid and no interference is called for.

7. Mr. N.P.Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5, has stated at bar that he is not opposing the petition and supports the cause of the petitioner and urges that the orders dated 29.08.2016 and 19/22.03.2018 be quashed and set aside.

8. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Akash Chhaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. N.P.Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5 and perused the documents on record.

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

9. The facts, in brief, are to the effect that one Virma Raga Koli was the owner of the land bearing survey nos.283, 297 and 311 and after his death, heirship came to be recorded vide entry no.361 dated 27.07.1978. Vide said entry, the names of Raymal Virma, Hemta Virma, Vershi Virma i.e., the petitioner, and daughters Galalbai Virma, Takhubai Virma and Halubai Virma were mutated in the revenue record; however, Galalbai Virma, Takhubai Virma and Halubai Virma released their rights and that is how, the names of Raymal Virma, Hemta Virma, Vershibhai Virma remained as the heirs of Virma Raga Koli.

10. In the year 2001, owing to the partition among brothers and their sons, the land bearing survey no.311 admeasuring 5 acres and 06 ghunthas, came to the share of Okha Hema Virma Koli and 5 acres and 06 ghunthas came in favour of Raymal Virma Koli. So far as survey no.297 is concerned 7 acres and 23 ghunthas came to Hemta Virma whereas 3 acres and 03 ghunthas, came to the share of Bhava Raymal. Survey no.283 admeasuring 5 acres and 12 ghunthas, came to the share of the petitioner i.e., Vershi Virma. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in possession of survey no.297 paiki/2 and because of the mutual understanding arrived at amongst the parties, it was decided that the petitioner will transfer the land bearing survey no.283 in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 whereas the respondent no.4, shall transfer the land bearing survey no.297 paiki/2 in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, mutation entries nos.2208, 2209, 2210 and 2211 came to be mutated in the revenue record all dated 16.06.2010 and all certified on 18.10.2010.

11. Brief reference of the entries would be necessitated at this stage. Vide entry no.2208, the petitioner acquired the right, and his name came to be entered in the revenue record with respect to survey no.297 paiki/2 and vide entry no. 2209, the respondent no.4, declared and

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

relinquished his right in favour of the petitioner for survey no. 297 paiki/2. At this stage one more factual aspect is also required to be taken note of, that is, entry nos. 2210 and 2211 in relation to survey no.283. Petitioner relinquished his right from survey no. 283 in favour of respondent no.5 which fact is recorded vide entry number 2210 and others and by entry no. 2211 acquisition of rights by respondent nos. 4 and 5 came to be recorded.

All the four entries were mutated in the revenue record on the same day i.e., 16.6.2010 and all were certified on 18.10.2010. Considering all the entries together, it is apparent that the same was out of family arrangement; mutual understanding amongst the petitioner on one hand and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on the other, with respect to their respective survey numbers, without any consideration. Nothing contrary has been pointed out either from the order of the Collector or from the revenue record by the Learned Assistant Government Pleader.

12. Perceptibly, though four entries namely 2208, 2209, 2210 and 2211 were simultaneously mutated in the revenue record, the Collector took only entry nos. 2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision. It has been observed that partition can be effected only once except in the exceptional circumstances. The Collector was of the opinion that in the present case acquisition of right has been recorded during the lifetime and by subsequent entry the name has been deleted; the transaction being a transfer without registered document, has deprived the state government of stamp duty. It is also observed that the agriculturist can get the land transferred by registered document as per the law.

13. Pertinently, the Collector has committed a fundamental error in taking selective entries in revision. Examination of entry nos. 2208 and 2209, in isolation and on stand-alone basis, would give an impression of element of transfer being present in the transaction; however, had the

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

office of the Collector verified the revenue record bit further and would have considered all the four entries in juxtaposition, it/he would not have come to the conclusion that transfer is under the guise of partition, without registered document. The half-hearted inquiry by the office of the Collector has led to the passing of the wrong order cancelling the entries and depriving the petitioner of his right over the land which is the ancestral property. Moreover, the Collector believed that the respondent no.4 has relinquished his right in favour of the petitioner and for which, an entry has been mutated, which is a transfer and could not have been without registered document; however, for coming to such a conclusion, there is no evidence available on record that there was a transfer. Conjoint reading of all the four entries, suggest that element of transfer is missing. Therefore, the said findings arrived at by the Collector are perverse. Under the circumstances, the observations of the Collector are based on incomplete record and not supported by any evidence and therefore, the order dated 29.08.2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

14. The petition deserves to be allowed also on the issue of exercise of powers by the Collector beyond reasonable period. Adverting to the said aspect it is required to be noted that it is only after following the due procedure of law that the entries were mutated in the revenue record i.e., village form no.VI on 16.06.2010 and certified on 18.10.2010. Mr.Gandhi, learned advocate is correct in contending that it is not that aspect of mutation of entries was not within the knowledge of the revenue authorities and therefore, the authorities were expected to have taken the action within the reasonable period, that would be one year; however, no action was taken till the year 2015. It was apropos the proposal dated 04.06.2014 of the Deputy Collector that only two entries were taken in suo motu revision in the year 2015. Undeniably, the Deputy Collector submitted proposal in the year 2014, while notices

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

were issued in the year 2015 that would be almost after a period of five years.

15. Also, it is nobody's case that the entries were mutated in the revenue record by perpetrating fraud or by suppressing the material facts, permitting the Collector to act beyond the reasonable period. On the contrary, it is after following the due procedure under the Code that the entries were mutated in the revenue record by the Mamlatdar and certified on 18.10.2010 which factum was very much within the knowledge of the revenue authorities: however, no action was taken within the reasonable period and hence taking of action almost after a period of five years, was beyond the reasonable period, rendering the action of the Collector in passing the order cancelling the entries, illegal and bad.

16. The issue that wherever a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time, is no longer res integra. The decision of the Apex Court in case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin (Supra) is worth referring to. The Apex Court, while dealing with the provisions of the Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 has held that Section 84C though does not prescribe any time for initiating the proceedings, the same should have been exercised within a reasonable time. In the case before the Apex Court, the appellant had purchased the land vide two registered sale deed in the year 1972 on the basis whereof, the name of the appellant was mutated in the revenue record on 14.02.1973. In September 1976, a suo motu inquiry was initiated by the Mamlatdar under Section 84C of the Act, in respect of the validity of the sale deed, the Mamlatdar after inquiry, held that the sales in question, were invalid as the appellant was not an agriculturist belonging to the State of Gujarat. Paragraph 2 of the judgment reads thus:

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

"2. Although Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel appearing for the appellant took a stand that under Section 63 of the Act aforesaid, there should not be any discrimination amongst the agriculturists with reference to the State to which such agriculturist belongs. But according to him even without going into that question the impugned order can be set aside on the ground that suo motu power has not been exercised within a reasonable time. Section 84-C of the Act does not prescribe any time for initiation of the proceeding. But in view of the settled position by several judgments of this Court that wherever a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time-limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case the transfer took place as early as in the year 1972 and suo motu enquiry was started by the Mamlatdar in September 1973. If sale deeds are declared to be invalid the appellant is likely to suffer irreparable injury, because he has made investments after the aforesaid purchase. In this connection, on behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on a judgment of Justice S.B. Majmudar (as he then was in the High Court of Gujarat) in State of Gujarat v. Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah [Spe. WA No. 2770 of 1979] disposed of on 1-3-1990, where in connection with Section 84-C itself it was said that the power under the aforesaid section should be exercised within a reasonable time. This Court in connection with other statutory provisions, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India [ 1994 (1) SCC 4] has impressed that where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under Section 84-C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs."

The Apex Court has referred to the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187, wherein it has been held that where no time limit for exercise of powers under a statute is provided, it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; and such powers must be exercised within a reasonable time.

17. Further, this Court in the case of Pushpaben Prabhudas Makhecha (Supra), has held that initiation of suo motu proceedings by

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

the authorities after six years would be impermissible. While allowing the writ petition, this Court, in para 11, has observed thus:

"11. It is undisputed fact that after the order of Assistant Collector, entry came to be mutated in revenue record in 1986. It is also undisputed fact that the authority instituted the proceedings after 6 years i.e. in 1992. The suo-motu power or revisional power under the Code or under the Act where period of limitation is not prescribed, should be exercised within reasonable period. In this view of the matter, when the decision and observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in case of The State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha & Ors. [1969 (2) SCC 187], in case of Bhaniben Makanbhai Tandel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [AIR 1991 Gujarat 184], in case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim [(1997) 6 SCC 71], in case of Pune Municipal Corpn. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 211] and the decision of this Court in case of Patel somabhai Devidas v. Dahyaji Somaji Thakor & Ors. [2010 (5) GLR 4152] and in case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2011 (3) GLR 98] are taken into account, it becomes clear that the proceedings are hit by unreasonable and inordinate delay. Span of almost 6 years is, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, unreasonable and that therefore, impugned action i.e. suo- motu proceedings as well as impugned order suffers from vice of inordinate delay and the said action as well as the impugned order deserves to be set aside."

18. This Court in another judgment in the case of Ratilal Maganlal Intwala (Supra), has held the exercise of powers after period of seven years, as improper. Yet in another decision in the case of Premjibhai Nagjibhai Heir (Supra) this Court allowed the petition on the ground of exercise of the power, beyond the reasonable period. The common thread running through all these judgments is that wherever a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time-limit such power should be exercised within a reasonable time.

19. In view of the aforesaid well settled proposition of law and applying the principles to the facts of the present case, it was impermissible to Collector to have taken the entries nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision after a period of almost close to five years. Therefore, the exercise of power by the Collector in the year 2015 cancelling the entries was beyond the reasonable period and hence

C/SCA/8031/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021

illegal. Therefore, the order of the Collector deserve to be set aside on this count as well. So far as the contention as regards cross utilization of power by the collector has not been gone into as the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press the same.

20. Moreover, the SSRD in appeal, instead of correcting the error committed by the Collector, adopted the same reasoning. The petitioner, indeed, in the appeal before the SSRD, has raised a specific contention about exercise of the powers by the Collector being beyond the reasonable period; however, SSRD without dealing with the said contention has proceeded to adopt the reasoning given by the Collector. It was expected of the SSRD to have dealt with the said issue, however he chose not to deal with the same. The said order of the SSRD reflects sheer non-application of mind and hence, the order dated 19/22.3.2018 warrants interference as well.

21. Under the circumstances, and in view of the aforementioned discussion, the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Collector and order dated 19/22.03.2018 passed by the SSRD are hereby quashed and set aside. Petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) URIL RANA