2006 Supreme(Guj) 699

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :JAYANT PATEL
GOVIND MURJI PATEL (KERAI) - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 7135 Of 1998
Decided On : 11/13/2006

Headnote:Point in Issue :

       Whether after issuance of Sanad in pursuance of the order passed by revenue authority for allotment of land, power of revision can be exercised in that regard?

       Head Note :

       Land Revenue Code - Sections 37 and 211 - Revision - Jurisdiction - Exercise of - Scope - Finding as to - In the case land was allotted to petitioner and Sanad was issued in pursuance to order passed by Revenue Authority - It is well settled that the power of revision under the Code cannot be exercised because the execution of the Sanad is an agreement between purchaser of the land/allottee and the State - In view of the legal position the exercise of revisional power by first authority and its confirmation of impugned order by higher authority is without jurisdiction which cannot be sustained - Further contention that land in question was forming part of water stream and, therefore, it was revenue land and for which only authority was Government and not Taluka Panchayat is found without merit - On close scrutiny it appears that it would not be a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of parties who confirmed the sale - That apart allotment was made in year 1985 and the revisional powers are exercised in the year 1994 roughly after a period of nine years from date of allotment which can be said as unreasonable - In view of this impugned order passed by different authorities including confirmation order passed by State Government are quashed and set aside - However Court observed that if Sanad is not lawfully issued aggrieved party including State Government shall be at liberty to prefer appropriate Civil Suit.

       Held :

       It is not in dispute that Sanad of the land in question was already issued, when the revisional powers were exercised by the authority for the first time in the year 1994. It appears that the Sanad came to be issued pursuant to the order dated 28.02.1985, more particularly in view of the conditions incorporated. It is well settled that if the Sanad has been issued in pursuance to the order passed by the revenue authority for allotment of the land the powers under the Land Revenue Code of revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised, since the execution of the Sanad is an agreement between the purchaser of the land/allottee of the land and the State Government. [Para 6]

       In the present case, revisional powers are exercised by the Deputy Collector in exercise of the revenue jurisdiction. Therefore, if the power is exercised by the TDO under Bombay Land Revenue Code, since the land was situated within the area of Gram Panchayat, it would not be a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the parties, who confirmed the sale by approving the process undertaken by the Gram Panchayat. [Para 9]

       Apart from the above, the allotment was made in the year 1985 and the revisional powers are exercised in the year 1994, roughly after a period of nine years from the date of the allotment. Such period ex facie can be said as unreasonable period. [Para 10]

       In a case where the action has proceeded on the basis that the citizens are led to believe that the officer has the authority to exercise the power and the auction participant bonafide has altered his position substantially to a great extent and if the officers of the State Government have not immediately initiated the action, then in such circumstances, if the challenge is brought to the Court against the allotment and may be on the detailed scrutiny, the Court finds that the powers were not delegated or otherwise to the officer, who allotted the land, the Court while exercising the power would try to balance the situation of making the loss good to the innocent person, who was led by the representation made of the officers of the State Government, save and except the cases where the exercise of power in favour of the beneficiary is in collusion with the officer or extraneous consideration prevailed. [Para 11]

       Case Law Analysis :

       Patal Raghav Natha vs. G.F. Mankodi, Commissioner, Rajkot Division & Ors., 1965 GLR 34. [Para 6].-Relied on.

       Govindhbhai Somabhai Nai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 1987 (2) GLR 47. [Para 7].-Distinguished.

       Law Laid Down :

       After allotment of land in year 1985, exercise of revisional power in year 1994 is with unreasonable delay.

       Conclusion :

       The exercise of revisional power by first authority and its confirmation thereof by Higher authority was without jurisdiction the proper course for the aggrieved party was to prefer the civil suit

       Decided in Favour of :

       Appellant

       Petition Allowed