[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Bhartiben Jagdishkumar Thacker vs State Of Gujarat on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19798 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√ -
=======================================================
BHARTIBEN JAGDISHKUMAR THACKER
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 18/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the
respondents waives service of notice of rule.
2. By filing present petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India as well as under the
provision of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code
(hereinafter referred to as "Revenue Code" for
short), the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent -
Collector in Revision Application No.6/2008 and
also prayed for quashment of Entry No.4873 dated
01.03.2014.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for
the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak
for the respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah referred to the facts
of the case and submitted that the petitioner is
the bonafide purchaser of the land situated at
City Survey Ward No.2, Sheet No.168, City Survey
No.3954 admeasuring 249.23 Sq.Mtrs. of moje Anjar
City from the original land owner one Ramjan Umar
Raima by way of executing registered sale deed and
on payment of entire sale consideration. He
submitted that after the purchase of the said
land, the petitioner applied for development
permission from Anjar Nagarpalika and pursuant
thereto, development permission was granted on
05.08.1998 and on the basis of the said permission
granted in favour of the petitioner, the
petitioner had carried out construction as per the
laying plan. He submitted that however to the
utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the
petitioner has been served with a letter dated
29.01.2009 addressed by the respondent no.3,
whereby the petitioner was informed that the
respondent - Collector has initiated suo motu
proceedings against the order passed by the City
Survey Superintendent in the year 1997 declaring
that the said land to be of the private ownership
and on receipt of such letter, an inquiry was made
by the petitioner and pursuant thereto, the
petitioner came to know about the fact that by
letter dated 10.04.2006 issued by the Settlement
Commissioner, State of Gujarat to the
Superintendent, Land Records, direction was issued
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
to initiate suo motu proceedings. He further
submitted that in fact, notice came to be issued
upon the original owner, Ramjan Umar Raima on
20.12.2008 and also directed that no transfer of
the said land be made during the pendency of
Revision Application No.6/2008 and immediately
thereafter, the respondent - Collector issued
letter to the respondent - City Survey
Superintendent, whereby direction was issued to
inquire about the subsequent transaction of the
land. He submitted that on receipt of such letter,
the petitioner appeared before the respondent -
Collector and filed her written submissions and
reply dated 04.02.2009, where the petitioner had
pointed out about the delay in initiation of suo
motu proceedings relying upon the decisions of
this Hon'ble Court and also pointed out about the
bonafide transaction by executing registered sale
deed. He submitted that thereafter also on
04.01.2012, the petitioner filed additional
written statement before the respondent -
Collector. He submitted that after considering the
facts of the case and the documents produced on
record, the respondent - Collector, by an order
dated 30.12.2013, had jumped to a conclusion that
he does not have jurisdiction in the matter and
direction was issued to the respondent - Deputy
Collector for challenging the order of the year
1997 before the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal,
however an order of stay restraining the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
petitioner from alienating and transferring the
said land during the pendency of the said revision
application before the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal has been passed, which is impugned in the
present petition. He submitted that in fact, at
the time of taking such decision, the respondent -
Collector has taken into consideration the order
passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil
Application No.7565/2011 as well as the decision
of this Hon'ble Court delivered in Letters Patent
Appeal No.660/2011.
5. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah submitted that in fact,
the aforesaid land was of private ownership of one
Ramjan Umar Raima since 1951 and by an order dated
19.07.1991 passed in City Survey Case No.82/1987-
88, the said land was declared to be private
ownership of Ramjan Umar, against the said order,
Anjar Nagarpalika preferred Appeal No.1/1987
before the respondent - Deputy Collector, who by
an order dated 10.03.1993, set aside the aforesaid
order dated 19.07.1991 and remanded the matter
back to the respondent - City Survey
Superintendent, however, the aforesaid order was
challenged by the said Ramjan Umar Raima before
the respondent - Collector, who by an order dated
21.06.1994 confirmed the order of the respondent -
Deputy Collector and remanded the matter before
the respondent - City Survey Superintendent and
pursuant thereto, Remand Case No.2/1997 was
registered and after considering the facts of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
case and after providing opportunity to parties
concerned, the respondent - City Survey
Superintendent, by an order dated 14.07.1997,
decided the said matter and thereby declared that
the land is of private ownership of Ramjan Umar
Raima and thus, twice it has been decided by the
authority concerned that the said land is of
private ownership.
6. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah submitted that despite
declaration of the land to be of private
ownership, suo motu proceedings have been
initiated by the concerned authority, however,
when the matter has reached upto the respondent -
Collector, the respondent - Collector had jumped
to a conclusion that he does not have jurisdiction
in the matter, however despite the said fact, the
respondent - Collector passed an order of stay
restraining the petitioner from alienating and
transferring the said land during the pendency of
revision application before the Hon'ble Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that in
fact, when the respondent - Collector had no
jurisdiction, in that event, the order of stay
ought not to have been passed and thus, the
respondent - Collector has travelled beyond
jurisdiction. He further submitted that till date,
as per the knowledge of the petitioner, no
revision application is filed before the Hon'ble
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal because no notice has
been served upon him till date. He submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
the said order is passed in the year 2013 and we
are in the year 2026 and till date, within filing
of the revision application, the said stay is in
operation, which affects the rights of the
petitioner, therefore, interference is required at
the hands of this Hon'ble Court. He, therefore,
submitted that the issue involved in the present
matter is squarely covered by the decision of this
Hon'ble Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs.
Heirs of deceased, Polabhai Ajabhai & Ors.,
reported in 2003 (1) GLH 256, wherein this Hon'ble
Court has observed that there is no bar to
initiate suo motu proceedings by the Collector but
it was not permissible for him to re-appreciate
the entire evidence again. He, therefore,
submitted that here in the present case on hand,
admittedly, the respondent - Collector, after
jumping to a conclusion about not having
jurisdiction, passed an order of stay on land,
which may not be permitted, otherwise, it would
cause great prejudice to the petitioner.
7. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah further submitted that
admittedly, there is gross delay of more than 10
years in initiation of suo motu proceedings by the
revenue authorities, therefore in view of the
numerous decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Hon'ble Court, such exercise of
powers beyond reasonable period is not
permissible. In support of the said submission, he
has referred to and relied upon the decision of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of
Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in AIR
1969 SC 1297. He, therefore, submitted that
considering the above facts of the case, the
present petition may be allowed and the impugned
orders may be quashed and set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Pathak
appearing for the respondents have strongly
objected to the present petition contending inter
alia that there is no error committed by the
revenue authorities while passing impugned orders,
therefore, no interference is required at the
hands of this Hon'ble Court. He further submitted
that in fact, after passing of the impugned order,
correspondence has been made to the Hon'ble
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and pursuant thereto,
revision application has been registered. He,
however candidly submitted that in the said
revision application, no notice has been issued
upon the petitioner till date. He, therefore,
submitted that at the most, the petitioner can
appear before the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
and agitate his grievance, which can be the right
forum. He, therefore, submitted that the
petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief as
prayed for, therefore, the present petition may be
rejected.
9. In view of the rival submissions canvassed by
learned advocates appearing for the parties and
having considered the documents available on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
record including the impugned orders, the
principal question, which would fall for
consideration of this Court, is as to whether the
respondent - Collector is empowered to take the
order of the respondent - Deputy Collector under
consideration when the said order was passed in
exercise of power under Section 37(2) of the
Revenue Code.
10. Having considered the submissions and having
considered the documents available on record, it
has emerged that the land in question was
originally belonging to one Ramjan Umar Raima, who
had filed Regular Civil Suit No.369/1981 against
Anjar Nagarpalika claiming inter alia about his
ownership of the said land, wherein settlement was
arrived at and the said suit was withdrawn,
however direction was issued upon the respnodent -
City Survey Superintendent to decide the right,
title and interest of said Rajma Umar Raima over
the land in question and pursuant thereto, the
respondent - City Survey Superintendent, by an
order dated 19.07.1991, declared the said land to
be of private ownership of the said Ramjan Umar
and thus, his ownership has been decided. However
the said order was challenged by the Anjar
Nagarpalika before the respondent - Deputy
Collector by filing Appeal No.8/1992, however, the
said Appeal was allowed setting aside the
aforesaid order dated 19.07.1991 and thereby the
matter was remanded back to the respondent - City
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
Survey Superintendent, however, the said order was
challenged by the said Ramjan Umar Raima before
the respondent - Collector by filing Appeal
No.43/1993, however, the said Appeal was dismissed
and the order of remand was confirmed and pursuant
thereto, Remand Case No.2/1997 was registered
before the respondent - City Survey
Superintendent, who by an order dated 14.07.1997,
held and decided that the said land is of private
ownership of Ramjan Umar Raima and thus again the
rights have been crystallized by the authority
concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner had
purchased the said land from the said Ramjan Umar
Raima by way of executing registered sale deed on
payment of entire sale consideration and entry to
that effect came to be mutated in favour of the
petitioner. After the purchase of the said land,
the petitioner applied for development permission,
which was granted on 05.08.1998 and pursuant
thereto, construction had been carried out by the
petitioner. However surprisingly, the petitioner
received a letter dated 29.01.2009 from the
respondent - City Survey Superintendent, whereby
the petitioner has been informed that the
respondent - Collector has initiated suo motu
proceedings against the order passed by the
respondent - City Survey Superintendent in the
year 1997 and on receipt of such letter, the
petitioner made inquiry and came to know that the
initiation of such suo motu proceedings is the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
basis of the letter dated 10.04.2006 written by
the Settlement Commissioner & Land Director, State
of Gujarat to the Superintendent, Land Records,
therefore, the petitioner appeared before the
respondent - Collector in the proceeding being
Revision Application No.6/2008 and filed her
written submissions and reply on 04.02.2009 and
also pointed out about the delay in initiation of
the suo motu proceedings after long period, which
is against the settled law and considering the
above facts of the case as pointed out by the
petitioner, the respondent - Collector, by an
order dated 30.12.2013, accepted that he does not
have jurisdiction in the said matter and directed
the respondent - Deputy Collector to challenge the
order of the year 1997 before the Hon'ble Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal, however despite the said fact,
he passed an order of stay against the petitioner,
whereby the petitioner is directed not to alienate
and transfer the said land during the pendency of
the revision application before the Hon'ble
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which is impugned in the
present petition.
11. It is a well-established principle that the High
Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot
reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding
of facts unless the authorities below had either
exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.
12. On the aforesaid settled proposition of law, I
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
must make reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna
Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram, reported in (1986) 4
SCC 447, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under,
"16. ... It is well settled that the High Court can
set aside or ignore the findings of fact of
an appropriate court if there was no evidence
to justify such a conclusion and if no
reasonable person could possibly have come to
the conclusion which the courts below have
come or in other words a finding which was
perverse in law. This principle is well
settled. In D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee
[(1952) 2 SCC 619] it was laid down by this
court that unless there was any grave
miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation
of law calling for intervention it was not
for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution to interfere. If there is
evidence on record on which a finding can be
arrived at and if the court has not
misdirected itself either on law or on fact,
then in exercise of the power under Article
226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, the
High Court should refrain from interfering
with such findings made by the appropriate
authorities. ..."
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. The aforesaid proposition of law was reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shamshad
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
Ahmad Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj, reported in (2008) 9
SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under,
"38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles
226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over
all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised
within the limits of law. The power is
supervisory in nature. The High Court does
not act as a court of appeal or a court of
error. It can neither review nor
reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon
which determination of a subordinate court or
inferior tribunal purports to be based or to
correct errors of fact or even of law and to
substitute its own decision for that of the
inferior court or tribunal. The powers are
required to be exercised most sparingly and
only in appropriate cases in order to keep
the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals
within the limits of law."
14. Even thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
another decision in case of Krishnanand Vs.
Director of Consolidation, reported in (2015) 1
SCC 553, wherein it was held that:
"12. The High Court has committed an error in
reversing the findings of fact arrived at by
the authorities below in coming to the
conclusion that there was a partition. No
doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is a settled law that such a
jurisdiction cannot be exercised for
reappreciating the evidence and arrival of
findings of facts unless the authority which
passed the impugned order does not have
jurisdiction to render the finding or has
acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the
finding is patently perverse. ..."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. At this stage, I would like to refer to and rely
upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court delivered in case of Rabari Petha Rama Vs.
State of Gujarat & Ors., in Special Civil
Application No.1050 of 2013 on 01.05.2018, wherein
the Coordinate Bench, after considering the
decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble
Court delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 660
of 2011 in Special Civil Application No. 4758 of
2010, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 03.07.2017 passed
in SLP No. 5806 of 2012, which has been taken into
consideration by the respondent - Collector while
passing impugned order, has observed as under,
"20. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the relevant provisions
of the orders passed by different Courts.
21. Under Sec.37[2] of the Code, Collector or his
survey officer can pass an order after formal
inquiry and due notice to the parties with
regard to any property or any right in or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
over any properties is claimed by or on
behalf of the government or by any person as
against the government. Under the said
provision as it is the Collector or survey
officer who can only pass such order, the
order on the revision application under
Sec.211 can be passed by the State Government
or any revenue officer, who is higher in rank
than the Collector.
Amongst the revenue officers, Collector
being the highest officer, normally, the
State Government can take up revision
application under Sec.211 of the Code.
22. There is distinction between Sec.203 [appeal]
against an order of a revenue officer to his
superior and Sec.211 under which power can be
exercised by State Government or certain
revenue officers.
23. Under Sec.203, an appeal shall lie from any
order passed by any revenue officer to his
superior. If the revenue officer is of the
rank of Assistant Collector, then, an appeal
would lie before the next superior officer.
Similarly, if the order has been passed by
the revenue officer of the rank of the Deputy
Collector, then, appeal would lie before the
next superior officer like Collector. If such
order has been passed by the Collector, then
superior officer may be any Secretary of the
Department.
24. On the contrary, such power has not been
delegated to the superior officer of the rank
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
of Secretary of the department under Sec.211.
Revisional power has been delegated on the
State Government and on revenue officers
which does not include Secretary of the
department. Therefore, no comparison can be
drawn between Secs. 203 and 211 of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code, 1879.
25. Under Sec.9, Assistant Collector and Deputy
Collector are to be subordinate to the
Collector. Under Sec. 10, any Assistant or
Deputy Collector can be placed in charge of
the Collector. When such person is placed as
Incharge Collector, he is empowered to pass
order under Sec.37[2] only in the capacity of
Collector, and not in the capacity of
Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector.
Therefore, we hold that once an order is
passed under Sec.37[2], for all purposes, the
order is to be treated to be an order passed
by the Collector and cannot be stated to be
an order passed by Assistant Collector or
Deputy Collector officer subordinate to the
Collector.
26. Under Sec.11 of the Code, Assistant to the
Collector of the highest rank present in the
district succeeds temporarily the office of
the Collector and shall be held to be a
Collector. In such case, if the highest
officer is of the rank of Assistant Collector
or Deputy Collector, under Sec.11, on
creation of temporary vacancy, such officer
succeeds temporarily to the office of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
Collector and shall be held to be a
Collector. In that capacity also, if any
order is passed under Sec.37[2] by such
officer who succeeds the office of the
Collector, will be deemed to be an order
passed by the Collector for all purposes and
cannot be treated to be an order passed by
the officer subordinate to the Collector.
27. In the case of Patel Khodidas Gangaram
Ramchand v. S.K. Chaudhari, reported in 1972
GLR 1029, the aforesaid facts had not been
noticed by the learned Single Judge nor
discussed in proper perspective. Learned
Single Judge, while discussing in the
unreported decision dated 16th June, 2009 in
the case of "Virjibhai Jivrajbhai" in Special
Civil Application No. 12230 of 2002 also
failed to notice the aforesaid provisions and
failed to interpret the power under Sec.211
against the order of Collector. Therefore, we
hold that the decision rendered by the
learned Single Judge in the case of Patel
Khodidas Gangaram Ramchand v. S.K. Chaudhari
[supra] [1972 GLR 1029] and in the case of
Virjibhai Jivrajbhai v. State of Gujarat
[Special Civil Application No. 12230 of
2002], do not hold good in the eye of law.
28. So far as the Division Bench decision of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Vishnu Dadu
Lokhande v. Umabai, reported in 1955 Vol.
LVII, 816 is concerned, therein, the Court
has discussed Sec. 9 and noticed that only
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
when Assistant or Deputy Collector is put in
charge of revenue administration of a taluka,
he is authorized to exercise powers of the
Collector to perform the duties. On rest of
the provision including provision of Sec.211,
the Court is silent. Therefore, we hold that
the decision of the Bombay High Court in the
case of Vishnu Dadu Lokhande v. Umabai,
reported in 1955 Vol. LVII, 816, is per in
curium and not applicable in the present
case.
29. Learned counsel for the respondent stressed
on language of the provision that exercise of
power by the Assistant or Deputy Collector is
made subject to the provision of Chapter XIII
of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. We may only
observe that all such orders including the
orders passed by the Collector are subject to
the provisions of Chapter XIII, which relates
to "appeals and revision".Therefore, if any
orders are passed by any officer of the rank
of Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector or
Collector, the same are subject to the
provisions of appeal and revision. This does
not mean that the Collector can sit in appeal
over an order passed by the Collector or
Collector can exercise revisional power over
an order passed by the Collector.
30. As we have held that an order passed under
Sec.37[2] of the Code for all purposes will
be deemed to be an order passed by the
Collector, at the cost of repetition, we hold
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
that no appeal will lie nor any revision
application will lie against such order
before an officer of equivalent rank i.e.
Collector. The order passed under Sec.37[2]
cannot be treated to be an order passed by
the Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector
nor can Collector entertain an appeal or
revision on the ground that it was actually
passed by the Assistant Collector or Deputy
Collector."
16. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to
Section 37 of the Revenue Code, which provides as
under:-
"37. All public roads, etc., and all lands which
are not the property of others, belong to the
[Government].-
(1) All public roads, lanes and paths, the
bridges, ditches, dikes, and fences, on or
beside, the same, the bed of the sea and of
harbours and creeks below high water-mark,
and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes, and
tanks, and all canals, and water-courses, and
all standing and flowing water and all lands
wherever situated, which are not the property
of individuals, or of aggregates of persons
legally capable of holding property, and
except in so far as any rights of such
persons may be established, in or over the
same, and except as may be otherwise provided
in any law for the time being in force are
and are hereby declared to be, with all
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
rights, in or over the same, or appertaining
thereto, the property of [the [Government]],
and it shall be lawful for the Collector
subject to the orders of the [State
Government], to dispose of them in such
manner as he may deem fit, or as may be
authorised by general rules sanctioned
by [the Government concerned], subject always
to the rights of way, and all other rights of
the public or of individuals legally
subsisting.
Explanation.- In this section "high-water-mark:"
means the highest point reached by ordinary
spring-tides at any seasons of the year.
[(2) Where any property or any right in or over
any properties is claimed by or on behalf of
[the [Government] or by any person as against
[the [Government]], it shall be be lawful for
the Collector or a survey officer, after
formal inquiry of which duo notice has been
given, to pass an order deciding the claim.]"
17. Thus, specific provision has been made for
initiation of proceeding in case if any person
claims any right over any property of the
Government. If such action is initiated then
notice needs to be issued to the party concerned.
Thus, the proceedings under Section 37 (2) is
substantial proceeding to be undertaken by the
revenue authority in a given case. Now, on perusal
of Rule 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules,
1972, it forms part of Chapter 15, which deals
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
with record of rights.
18. Thus in view of the above decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court and the
provision of law, it appears that the order passed
under Section 37(2) of the Revenue Code will be
deemed to be an order passed by the Collector,
therefore, the remedy available under the law to
challenge the said order is by way of filing
revision application before the higher authority
i.e. Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the
present case. Therefore if the facts of the
present case are examined, in that event, it is
found out that while passing impugned order by the
respondent - Collector, it is specifically
observed that the respondent - Collector does not
have jurisdiction and directed the respondent -
Deputy Collector to challenge the order of the
year 1997 before the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal and despite not having jurisdiction, the
respondent - Collector has exercised his
jurisdiction by passing an order of stay against
any transaction related to the land in question,
which in my considered opinion can be said to be
without jurisdiction in view of the fact that once
arriving at a conclusion by the respondent -
Collector himself, no such order of stay ought to
have been passed.
19. So far as the submission made by learned AGP with
regard to registration of revision application
before the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
concerned, it is required to be noted that the
impugned order is of the year 2013 and we are in
the year 2026 and thus, more than 12 years have
been passed but despite the said fact, not a
single hearing had taken place before the Hon'ble
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal nor the petitioner has
been served with any notice in relation thereto.
Therefore continuation of Entry No.4873 in the
revenue record mutated pursuant to the order dated
30.12.2023 passed by the Collector is nothing but
a harassment to the petitioner, who is absolute
owner of the land as the said aspect has already
been considered and decided by the revenue
authored in past and despite the said fact, the
petitioner is running pillar to post for getting
justice. Therefore, the said entry deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
20. Further, it is also an admitted fact that, in the
present case, suo motu exercise of power by the
authority is after fourteen years of passing order
in the year 1997. Now, it is well settled by
catena of decisions that suo motu revision of
power needs to be exercised in a reasonable period
of time. Even if no limitation is prescribed for
exercising such power, even in such case power
needs to be exercised in reasonable period of
time. At this stage, I would like to rely upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Raghav Natha (supra), upon which reliance has been
placed by learned advocate for the petitioner,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
wherein it was held that if the revisional
authority was inclined to exercise the power under
the Revenue Code, it ought to have been satisfied
that such power has been invoked within reasonable
time, otherwise the bar of delay would operate.
Relevant observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid decisions read as under,
"12. It seems to us that sec. 65 itself indicates
the length of the reasonable time within
which the Commissioner must act u/s. 211.
u/s. 65 of the Code if the Collector does not
inform the applicant of his decision on the
application within a period of three months
the permission applied for shall be deemed to
have been granted. This section shows that a
period of three months is considered ample
for the Collector to make up his mind and
beyond that the legislature thinks that the
matter is so urgent that permission shall be
deemed to have been granted. Reading Ss. 211
and 65 together it seems to us that the
Commissioner must exercise his revisional
powers within a few months of the order of
the Collector. This is reasonable time
because after the grant of the permission for
building purposes the occupant is likely to
spend money on starting building operations
at least within a few months from the date of
the permission. In this case the Commissioner
set aside the order of the Collector on
12.10.1961, i.e., more than a year after the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19798/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
order, and it seems to us that this order was
passed too late.
21. Thus in view of aforesaid decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the suo
motu powers are required to be exercised within
reasonable time. In the present case, as observed
hereinabove, the suo motu proceedings were
initiated by authority concerned after a period of
approximately fourteen years and thus, admittedly
said suo motu proceedings were not initiated
within reasonable period. Therefore considering
the above facts of the case, the present petition
deserves to be allowed.
22. In the circumstances, the present petition stands
allowed. The impugned order dated 30.12.2023
passed by the respondent - Collector in Revision
Application No.6/2008 is hereby quashed and set
aside. Further Entry No.4873 dated 01.03.2014
mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the
aforesaid order dated 30.12.203 is also hereby
quashed and set aside.
23. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
