State Of Gujarat Special ... vs Natvarbhai Prahaladbhai Patel ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16810 Guj

     C/LPA/931/2021                               ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 931 of 2021

          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14194 of 2017

                                  With
               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 931 of 2021
==========================================================
          STATE OF GUJARAT SPECIAL SECRETARY REVENUE
                     DEPARTMENT(DISPUTES)
                             Versus
            NATVARBHAI PRAHALADBHAI PATEL @CHOKSI
==========================================================
Appearance:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
 for the Respondent(s) No. 13
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13.1,2,4,5,7,8,9
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 13.2,3,6
SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13.1,2,4,5,7,8,9
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       ARAVIND KUMAR
       and
       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                              Date : 26/10/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the

order dated 12.2.2021 passed in Special Civil Application

No.14194 of 2017 whereunder petition filed by

respondents Nos.1 to 13.2 for quashing of the order dated

25.6.1987 passed by Mamlatdar in respect of land bearing

C/LPA/931/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021

Survey No.255 and order dated 15.12.2009 passed by

District Collector as also order dated 13.6.2017 passed by

Special Secretary, Revenue Department, affirming the

orders passed by the Mamlatdar and District Collector

came to be set aside on the ground that suo moto power

came to be exercised for cancelling the entries after a

lapse of 22 years.

2. The gravamen of the petitioner's case is as under:

2.1 Petitioners are bona fide purchasers of different

non-agricultural plots in land bearing Survey No.255

situated at Bodakdev, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad

under different registered sale deeds from 1988 to 2006

and after a lapse of 22 years, District Collector by

exercising suo moto powers issued notice dated 4.5.2009

to review the order dated 25.6.1987 passed by the

Mamlatdar with regard to cancellation of the word "new

tenure" concerning the record of the land in question as

well as mutation Entry No.3814 dated 27.6.1987. Said

show cause notice on being duly replied to by the

C/LPA/931/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021

petitioners did not find favour and District Collector by

order dated 25.12.2009 set aside the order dated

25.6.1987 passed by the Mamlatdar, Daskroi and

directions came to be issued to record the said land as a

new tenure (restricted tenure land) and petitioners were

directed to pay extra premium and it was further ordered

that till such extra premium was paid, the land should not

be transferred.

2.2 Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.12.2009,

petitioners approached the revisional authority in

Application No.MVV/HKP/AMD/33 OF 2010 before Special

Secretary, Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, who by

order dated 13.6.2017 rejected the revision application

and affirmed the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and

District Collector.

3. Hence, being aggrieved by these orders,

petitioners approached the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival

contentions has taken note of the judgment of the Apex

C/LPA/931/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021

Court in the case of Jt. Collector Ranga Reddy Dist &

Anr. Vs. D. Narsing Rao & Ors. reported in (2015)3

SCC page 695 as well as judgment of this Court in

Ravichand Manekchand Sheth and Ors. Vs. State of

Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2006(2) GLR page 1576

and held that unquestionably the powers in the instant

case had been exercised after a passage of 22 years and

even in case where the orders are sought to be revised as

fraudulent, exercise of such power should be within a

reasonable period of discovery of such fraud and the

period of 22 years being too long, learned Single Judge

has quashed the impugned order 13.6.2017 and held

that such power could not have been exercised after a

lapse of 22 years. Learned Single Judge has also taken

note of the fact that there is no explanation offered for the

delay of 22 years and the entire exercise carried out by

the revisional authority is not supported by any plausible

explanation. We do not find any error having been

committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the

petition.

C/LPA/931/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021

For the reasons afore-stated, appeal fails and stands

dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands consigned to

records as it would not survive for consideration.

(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) RADHAKRISHNAN K.V.