Gujarat High Court

Rameshchandra Naranbhai Patel vs Special Secretary Revenue Dept. ... on 3 November, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/6314/2017                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6314 of 2017



                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE                                      Sd/-
                       ================================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No
                                                                                               No
                       ================================================================
                                        RAMESHCHANDRA NARANBHAI PATEL
                                                     Versus
                                SPECIAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT. (APPEALS) & ORS.
                       ================================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7
                       MS NIDHI VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7
                       ================================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                                                             Date : 03/11/2025
                                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas,

learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent

Nos.1 to 4.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the

parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and

disposal.

3. The present writ petition has been filed praying

for the following reliefs:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6314/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

undefined

"A. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the orders at ANNEXURE B and C and be pleased to further direct the authorities to consider the land as "A" Tenure, which had been continued from 1992.

B. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the orders at ANNEXURE B and C;"

4. The factual matrix in the present case is that,

the property of the petitioner herein being Tika

No.100 City Survey No.4674/B at Navsari city

admeasuring 792 sq. mts. and City Survey No.4675

admeasuring 966 sq. mts. were initially recorded as

'A' Tenure land in the city survey records property

card. That thereafter by Resolutions dated 09.01.1974

and 27.05.1974, the City Survey Inquiry Officer has

designated the subject land of the petitioner as 'C'

Tenure.

4.1 Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal

before the Dy. Collector, Navsari on 31.01.1992. By

order dated 06.06.1992, the Dy. Collector, Navsari

was pleased to allow the said appeal and held that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6314/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

undefined

the change in the tenure of the lands of the

petitioner was incorrect and accordingly held that

the land of the petitioner be classified as 'A'

Tenure.

4.2 Thereafter, the Collector, Navsari took up the

case of the petitioner by way of suo-motu revision

under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules

on the recommendation of the Dy. Collector, Navsari

by communication dated 19.12.2007. That thereafter,

show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner

herein on 31.12.2007. After a period of 17 years, the

petitioner appeared before the Collector, Navsari and

made his submissions. By order dated 12.06.2009, the

Collector, Navsari was pleased to set aside the order

passed by the Dy. Collector, Navsari dated 06.06.1992

and held that the subject land of the petitioner be

classified as 'C' Tenure.

4.3 Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the revision

application before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue

Department, who by order dated 05.07.2016 was pleased

to uphold the order passed by the Collector, Navsari.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6314/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

undefined

4.4 Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the

present Special Civil Application.

5. Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate for the

petitioner submits that after about 17 years, the

Collector, Navsari has taken the case of the

petitioner into suo-motu revision. He submits that

the said proceedings are barred by limitation. He

further submits that the impugned order passed by the

Collector and upheld by the Secretary (Appeals),

Revenue Department is without jurisdiction and

requires to be quashed and set aside. He submits that

the petitioner had purchased the subject lands in

question when the same was shown as 'A' Tenure land

in the property card. Necessary mutation entries have

also been effected and certified showing the said

lands as 'A' tenure land. He submits that without any

notice to the petitioner on the basis of the

resolution, the tenure of the subject lands have been

changed from 'A' tenure to 'C' Tenure behind the back

of the petitioner. He submits that the said lands

were of 'A' Tenure since very inception. He submits

that in the year 1970-1973, the City Superintendent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6314/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

undefined

has made inquiry only for verification of ownership

rights and it has nothing to do with the verification

of the tenure of the land. Still the tenures of the

subject lands have been modified. He submits that

considering the notification published in the Gazette

under Section 126 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code,

the subject land cannot be treated as 'C' Tenure. He

further submits that the impugned order is required

to be quashed and set aside since no hearing was

given before change of tenure of subject lands and

the material and documents on record were also not

considered while passing the said order. He,

therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed

and set aside and the present Special Civil

Application be allowed.

6. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the

respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the Collector,

Navsari has rightly observed in its order that the

petitioner had preferred appeal after a period of 19

years before the Dy. Collector, Navsari and hence,

the appeal was barred by inordinate delay. She

submits that the subject land is not a Gamtal land

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6314/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

undefined

and therefore, the observations of the Dy. Collector,

Navsari considering the subject lands as 'A' Tenure

is rightly rejected by the Collector, Navsari. She

also submits that the report of the Inquiry Officer

to consider the subject land as 'A' Tenure is also

not correct and therefore the same is also rightly

rejected by the Collector, Navsari. She also submits

that the impugned orders passed by the Collector,

Navsari and upheld by the Secretary (Appeals),

Revenue Department are just and proper and are based

on the documents and material on record and

therefore, no interference be called for. She submits

that the present Special Civil Application is

required to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned advocates for the parties,

considered the submissions and perused the documents

on record.

8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that

the Coordinate Bench of this Court had occasion to

deal with the similar issue in Special Civil

Application No.17227 of 2013 decided on 22.12.2014

wherein it has been held that:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6314/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

undefined

"9. It is an admitted position that thus, after the order was passed by the Deputy Collector, the parties acted upon it and the property in question continued for 17 years as "A" tenure land and it is also an admitted position that the Collector issued show cause notice of Suo Motu proceedings after a lapse of 17 years. It is noteworthy that the order passed by the District Collector in the review proceedings, on the contrary, shows that the show cause notice came to be issued after calling for the opinion from the City Survey Superintendent as well as the Deputy Collector. The order of the Collector records that the show cause notice came to be issued and the order was taken in Suo Motu Revision on opinion of the Deputy Collector dated 19.12.2007. All the three contentions raised by Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner are similar to those contentions which were raised before this Court in Special Civil Application No.1294 of 2009 and allied matter, wherein this Court has observed thus:

"9. Insofar as the contention that the Collector had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under rule 108(6) of the Rules against the order passed by the Deputy Collector is concerned, a perusal of the record of the case reveals that the appeal against the order passed by the City Survey Superintendent had been preferred before the Deputy Collector under rule 108(5) of the Rules. A plain reading of rule 108(5) of the Rules indicates that against the order passed by the Deputy Collector under rule 108(5), the Collector is empowered to exercise suo motu powers of revision under subrule (6) thereof. Under the circumstances, the contention that the order passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction, on the ground that the Collector does not have the jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the order passed by the Deputy Collector, is clearly contrary to the provisions of rule 108(6) of the Rules and, therefore, does not merit acceptance.

10. On the question as to whether the delay of twelve years in the exercise of suo motu powers of revision against the order dated 09.11.1995 passed by the Deputy Collector would render the order passed by the Collector without jurisdiction, it is by now well settled by a catena of decisions of this court as well as the Supreme Court that even if the statute does not prescribe any period of limitation for the exercise of suo motu powers of revision, such powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time. Under the circumstances, the delay of twelve years in exercise of suo motu powers cannot in any manner be said to be a reasonable period. However, in the facts of the present case, it may be noted that the fourth respondents had preferred appeals against the order

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6314/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

undefined

passed by the City Survey Superintendent after a period of almost twenty years. However, that by itself would not confer power upon the Collector to exercise powers of suo motu revision after a delay of twelve years. More so, for the reason that between the time when the order came to be made by the Deputy Collector on 09.11.1995 and the time when the Collector exercised powers of suo motu revision, equities have changed as the petitioner Sanidhya Cooperative Housing Society has purchased the subject lands, with an intention to put up residential premises for its members. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Collector prejudicially affects the members of the petitioner Society who are bona fide purchasers of the subject lands, which were shown to be of A tenure in the revenue record. Under the circumstances, the exercise of suo motu powers of revision by the Collector after twelve years, being beyond a reasonable period, is clearly without jurisdiction.

11. Adverting to the merits of the case, a perusal of the record of the case annexed along with the memorandum of petition and the affidavit filed by the petitioner reveals that the subject lands, right from the beginning, were shown to be of A tenure in the revenue record. The record reveals that the lands bearing Tika No.21, City Survey No.20 paiki were originally of A tenure during the time of former State of Vadodara. In the year 1972 when new measurements came to be carried out, the subject lands were given new Tika No.60, City Survey No.3065 and 3066 respectively. At that point of time, the City Survey Superintendent declared the tenure of the subject lands to be of C type. However, there is nothing on the record to show as to on the basis of which material the City Survey Superintendent had declared the lands to be of C tenure. The record of the case also reveals that the notice which was given by the City Survey Superintendent in the past while conducting the city survey in the year 197374, was in relation to hakk choksi, viz., verification of rights, which was only for the purpose of verification of ownership/possessory rights. No notice had been given by the City Survey Superintendent proposing to change the tenure of the lands in question. Under the circumstances, the original land owners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the City Survey Superintendent while changing the tenure of the subject lands from A to C.

12. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon the inquiry register of the city survey for the purpose of contending that the original owner was served with a copy of the order passed by the City Survey Officer and that reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to him. In this regard, a perusal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/6314/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025

undefined

of the order dated 14.09.1973 passed by the Inquiry Officer as reflected in the inquiry register of the city survey (Annexure R1) reveals that what is stated therein is that, on a perusal of the documents produced by Bhimbhai Manibhai Desai, Bhimbhai Manibhai Desai was the owner and occupier of the subject lands. That the special assessment in respect of the subject lands has been determined from 28.07.1967 to 31.03.1967 and that the same is revisable. In respect of the revenue survey No.347, the Inquiry Officer has recorded that Daulatrai Maganlal Desai, father of Sureshkumar Daulatrai Desai had purchased the said lands from the original owner by a registered sale deed dated 27.07.1951 and that on the basis of the documents produced by the parties on 14.09.1973, Sureshkumar Daulatrai Desai was holding the subject lands on ownership basis by way of succession. It is further recorded that the Collector has, by an order dated 28.07.1967, fixed the special assessment which is for the period from 28.07.1967 to 31.7.1967 and that the said assessment is revisable. Thus, from the order passed by the Deputy Collector, there is nothing to reveal as to on what basis, the tenure of the subject lands has been changed from A tenure to C tenure."

9. The said view has also been confirmed by the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters

Patent Appeal Nos.485 of 2014 and other connected

matters. I am in respectful agreement with the same.

10. In the present case also, the suo motu

revisional powers has been exercised after a period

of more than 17 years, which cannot be said to be

within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, it is

clearly without jurisdiction. The impugned orders

passed by the Collector and as upheld by the

Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department prejudicially

affects the petitioner who is bonafide purchaser of