Gujarat High Court
Parvatiben Wife Of Balubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 January, 2023
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/282/2014 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 282 of 2014
================================================================
PARVATIBEN WIFE OF BALUBHAI VALLABHBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA PANDYA FOR MR SHITAL R PATEL(2166) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR GAURANG K PATEL(2613) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 18/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the
following prayer:-
"18(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or in
the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the (i) order dated 27-9-2013 passed in
Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/SAT/112/2003 at Annexure-F
and (ii) order dated 17-4-2003 passed by the learned Collector, Surat in
RTS/Revision/Case No.182/2002 at Annexure-C, whereby the
authorities below cancelled the entry no.2133 dated 21-7-1992 certified
on 24-8-1992"
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Aditya Pandya appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by catena of
decisions of this Court as well as by the Supreme Court since by the
impugned order, the Collector, Surat, by invoking his powers under Rule
108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (for short "the Rules")
has sought to revise the entry no.2133 dated 21.07.1992, in revision after
lapse of 10 years from the date of certification of the said entry vide
C/SCA/282/2014 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
notice dated 21.09.2002. In support of his submission, he has placed
reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale &
Ors, (2009) 9 SCC 352, State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors,
(1969) 2 SCC 187 and also in the case of Evergreen Apartment Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd. vs. Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department,
AIR 1992 Guj 118. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders passed by
the respondent authority as well as the SSRD are required to be quashed and
set aside.
3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Kanra has submitted that the impugned
orders do not require any interference since the respondent authorities have
opined that the land in question was granted through Will, though the
petitioner was not an agriculturist. He has further submitted that the said
entry is in breach of Section 43 and Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the Tenancy Act").
4. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute. The land bearing Block
No.171 of Mauje Andhi, Taluka Olpad, District Surat i.e. the land in
question originally belonged to one Maganbhai Kuberbhai, which was a new
tenure land within the meaning of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The said
Maganbhai Kuberbhai executed a Will on 01.12.1990 in favour of the
petitioner and on death of Maganbhai on 27.12.1990, the land in question
came to be mutated in the name of the present petitioner since acquired by
Will executed by Maganbhai, hence a mutation entry no.2133 dated
21.07.1992 came to be certified on 24.08.1992. For all these years, the
petitioner has been cultivating the said land. The Collector, Surat, by
invoking his powers under Rule 108(6) of the Rules took the entry no.2133
dated 21.07.1992 into revision by issuing a notice dated 21.09.2002. Thus, it
C/SCA/282/2014 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
is apparent that the Collector has exercised the powers after a period of 10
years questioning the aforesaid entry by taking it in suo motu revision on the
ground of alleged breach of Section 43 and Section 63 of the Tenancy Act.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred further remedies and ultimately,
the SSRD has also rejected his revision application by the order dated
27.09.2013, which has given rise to the present petition.
5. By now, it is well settled proposition of law and no more res integra
that the revenue authority has to exercise the powers under the statute within
a reasonable period of time [vide judgments in the cases of Santoshkumar
Shivgonda Patil & Ors. (supra), Patel Raghav Natha & Ors (supra) and
Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (supra)]. Thus,
the Collector had no authority to take the entry, which has been mutated in
the year 1992 by way of exercising of suo motu revision powers under Rule
108(6) of the Rules after a lapse of ten years. Hence, the impugned orders
are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
ABHISHEK/81
