D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE prayer of the petitioners in this petition is for quashing the order of the Deputy Collector dated 5-5-1992 (Annexure-a), order dated 17-9-1992 of the Collector, Bharuch (Annexure-b) and order dated 28-12-1995 of the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat (Annexure-c ).

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under:- on 4-8-1990, the petitioners purchased agricultural land of Survey No. 160/1 of Jadeshwar from one Bhailal Patel for a sum of Rs. 61,000=00. The purchase was reported to the revenue authorities whereupon, Mutation Entry No. 4617 was made in the name of the petitioners on 5-8-1990 in Form No. 6 in the revenue records. This entry was certified on 29-12-1990 after necessary verification. On 22-8-1991, the Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad instructed the Deputy Collector, Bharuch for initiating proceedings for review of the mutation entry. On 5-5-1992, the Deputy Collector, Bharuch registered a Revision Case No. 15/1992 against the petitioners and the vendor and ultimately cancelled the mutation entry on 5-5-1992. This action seems to have been taken on the application dated 22-8-1991 of one Jayeshbhai Patel, resident of Jadeshwar given in the office of the Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, pointing out the irregularities in the sale deed. Feeling aggrieved from this order, revision was preferred before the Collector, who dismissed the same on 17-9-1992. Another revision was also preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Collector, which was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department on 28-12-1995. These three orders are under challenge in this petition, mainly on the following grounds :- (1) That the action of suo motu revision was taken beyond reasonable period, and since revision was initiated after about 2 years of certification of mutation entry, the impugned orders become without jurisdiction and illegal; (2) The order of the Deputy Collector (Annexure-a) is totally without jurisdiction; (3) The proceedings for review of mutation entry were also without jurisdiction; and (4) The powers conferred on one authority under two acts can not be simultaneously exercised in proceedings under one of such Act.

( 3 ) NO counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondent, though the petition was admitted on 15-2-1996. Thus, prima facie, it has to be believed that whatever is alleged in the writ petition remained uncontroverted, and as such there is no reason to dismiss the petition.

( 4 ) IN addition to this, if the points under challenge are considered, it can be said that the points raised are not without substance.

( 5 ) SO far as the point of delay in taking suo motu action is concerned, undisputed facts are that, the land was purchased by the petitioners on 4-8-1990. Mutation Entry No. 4617 was made in the name of the petitioners on 5-8-1990. Thereafter, necessary verification was made and the mutation entry was certified on 29-12-1990. On 22-8-1991, the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department instructed the Deputy Collector for initiating suo motu proceedings in revision for cancellation of the entry. Thus, from the date of the mutation entry, namely, from 5-8-1990, the instruction given by the Chief Secretary on 22-8-1991 was beyond period of one year. For taking suo motu action in review, no time is prescribed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code but, the order Annexure-a shows that, as a result of suo motu action initiated after expiry of one year of mutation entry, the same was cancelled by order dated 5-5-1992. Thus, cancellation was effected after a period of about two years. It was definite case of the petitioners that such action could not be taken after expiry of reasonable period.

( 6 ) IN the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN v. FATMABAI IBRAHIM reported in (1997) 6 S. C. C. 71, the Supreme Court has held that, where suo motu enquiry by Mamlatd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document