Point of Law: it was impermissible to Collector to have taken the entries nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision after a period of almost close to five years. Therefore, the exercise of power by the Collector in the year 2015 cancelling the entries was beyond the reasonable period and hence illegal

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19/22.03.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e., Special Secretary, Revenue Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SSRD’) and order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 i.e., the District Collector (hereinafter referred to as “the Collector”).

2. The issue, involved in the present writ petition, revolves around entry nos.2208 and 2209 in the revenue record and pertains to land bearing survey number 297paiki/2. Vide entry no.2208, the name of the petitioner was mutated with respect to survey no.297 paiki 2 and vide entry no. 2209, the respondent no.4, declared and relinquished his right with respect to survey no. 297 paiki in favour of the petitioner. Both the entries were recorded in the revenue record, that is, village form no. VI on 16.06.2010 and were certified on 18.10.2010; however, the Collector, in suo motu revision has cancelled the entry nos.2208 and 2209, by order dated 29.08.2016. The said order of the Collector was unsuccessfully challenged before the SSRD, hence the present petition.

3. Undisputed facts are that the land bearing survey nos.283, 297 and 311 of village Indhata, Taluka Tharad belonged to Virma Raga Koli, father of the petitioner. After the death of the Virma Raga Koli, entry no.361 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 27.07.1978 recording the heirship and by the very same entry three sisters i.e., Galalbai Virma, Takhubai Virma and Halubai Virma, since they relinquished their rights, their names came to be deleted. Partition took place and hence entry no.1138 came to be mutated on 08.05.2001 recording the partition and as a result whereof survey no.311 came in favour of Okha Hema Virma Koli and Raymal Virma Koli; survey no.297 came in favour of Hemta Virma Koli and Bhava Raimal Koli; whereas survey no.283 came in favour of Vershibhai Virma i.e. the petitioner.

3.1 According to the petitioner, since the petitioner was in possession of survey no.297 paiki/2 and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were in possession of survey no.283, by way of mutual arrangement and after following necessary procedure under Gujarat Land Revenue Code,1879 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), entry nos.2208, 2209, 2210 and 2211 came to be mutated in the revenue record; all dated 16.06.2010 and certified on 18.10.2010, It is the case of the petitioner that with respect to survey no. 297 paiki/2 the name of the petitioner came to entered vide entry no.2208, and vide entry no.2209, the respondent no.4 having relinquished his right over the survey no.297 paiki/2, came to be deleted. That is how, the petitioner acquired right over land bearing survey no.297 paiki/2.

Similarly, entry no.2210 came to be mutated in the revenue record with respect to survey no. 283 whereby, the name of the petitioner came to be deleted, he, having relinquished his right and the names of the respondent nos.4 and 5 came to be mutated. That is how respondent nos.4 and 5 acquired the right over land bearing survey no.283. The aforesaid mutation of entry nos.2208, 2209, 2210 and 2211 all dated 16.06.2010, and certified on 18.10.2010 in the village Form no. VI, were result of the mutual arrangement amongst the family members.

3.2 After a period of five years, the Collector while taking the entry nos.2208 and 2209 in suo motu revision, passed the order dated 29.08.2016, cancelling the entry nos.2208 and 2209 and as a result whereof, the petitioner ceased to have any right over the land bearing survey no.297 paiki/2. The order dated 29.08.2016, was challenged before the SSRD, who, rejected the revision application. Hence, the present petition with the aforementioned prayers.

4. None of the respondents have filed their replies.

5. Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the names of the petitioner and hi