Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.K. Keshote, J.
Mali Sonaji Khemaji - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat and another - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 5937 of 1984
Decided On : 25-03-1997
LAND REVENUE - REVISION OF ORDERS - DELAY - Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 211 - Delay of more than four years in exercise of revisional power under Section 211 of the Code is fatal and the order passed in exercise of such power is liable to be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was allotted land under a Government resolution that provided for the allotment of land to persons whose lands were acquired for the construction of a university campus. The allotment was made in 1977 and the petitioner took possession of the land and incurred expenses to make it fertile. In 1981, the Collector cancelled the allotment under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, exercising revisional power. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector had not exercised the revisional power within a reasonable time. The delay of more than four years in giving notice for the exercise of revisional power was fatal to the matter. The court relied on its earlier decision in a similar case, where it had held that a delay of four years in exercising revisional power under Section 211 of the Code was not within a reasonable time.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had exercised the revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, within a reasonable time. 2. Whether the delay of more than four years in giving notice for the exercise of revisional power was fatal to the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay of more than four years in exercising revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, was fatal to the matter. The court relied on its earlier decision in a similar case, where it had held that a delay of four years in exercising revisional power under Section 211 of the Code was not within a reasonable time.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the Collector's order cancelling the allotment of land to the petitioner. The court also quashed the notice issued by the Talati-cum-Mantri for making necessary corrections in the revenue record.
ORDER :
S.K. Keshote, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition and challenge is made thereunder to the order of the Collector dated 31st December, 1981 Annexure 'D' and the notice dated 21st September, 1984 of the Talati-cum-Mantri.
2. Under the order dated 31st December, 1981, Annexure 'D', the land allotted to the petitioner under the order dated 6-6-1977 has been cancelled. This has been done by exercising revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
3. The facts which are not in dispute, in brief are as under:
4. The allotment of the lands made in favour of the petitioner and others were sought to be cancelled by exercising revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and in this respect notice was given to the petitioner and others. The notice which was given to the petitioner is dated 27th July, 1981. Similar notice was given to Motaji Moitaji. All the matters were decided together by the Collector and under the impugned order dated 31st December, 1981, the allotment of the lands made in favour of the petitioner and Motaji Joitaji has been cancelled.
5. Motaji Joitaji challenged that order of the -Collector before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 1117/82 which came to be allowed by this Court on 23rd March. 1982. A copy of the judgment of this Court has been placed by the petitioner on the record of this Special Civil Application. The petitioner has not challenged that order at the relevant time and has given excuse that the copy of the same was not made available to him by his counsel, to whom the order was sent by the Collector. He came to know about this order only when the notice dated 21st September, 1984 was issued by Talati-cum-Mantri on the basis of the said order, for making necessary correction in the revenue record. Then he filed this Special Civil Application before this Court.
6. One of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice for cancellation of the allotment has been given by the Collector after more than four years of the allotment, and as such, the revisional power exercised in the present case cannot be said to be exercised within reasonable time. It has next been contended that the land has wrongly been taken to be the land of Motaji only. Much earlier to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land was partitioned amongst the three brothers and they were already in possession of the separate portion of the lands, and as such, on the basis of this fact, the petitioner has rightly been allotted the land by the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his first contention placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Motaji Joitaji and the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5023/85
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
