2022 Supreme(Guj) 1003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
Satishbhai Jivabhai Patel – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 274 of 2019
Decided On : 12-10-2022

The power to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 is subject to the principles of natural justice and the requirement of giving a show-cause notice to the affected parties. Further, such proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time, and any delay in initiating the proceedings may render them invalid.

Headnote:

BOMBAY PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT, 1947 - SECTION 9 - SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS - DELAY - LIMITATION - REASONABLE TIME - JURISDICTION - ESTOPPEL - ADVERSE POSSESSION - SETTLEMENT - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF ORDERS:

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners purchased the subject matter land by registered sale deed in 1984 and revenue entry was mutated in their favor in 1985. In 1992, the Deputy Collector initiated suo-moto proceedings under Section 9 of the Act to cancel the revenue entry on the ground that the sale was in violation of Sections 7 and 9 of the Act. The petitioners were not served with any notice under Section 6(2) of the Act prior to the initiation of the proceedings. The Deputy Collector passed an order in 1994, canceling the revenue entry with regard to Block Nos. 12 and 16, and imposed a penalty of Rs.250/- under Section 9 of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioners and private respondents filed a joint application to enter their joint names with regard to the subject matter land. Pursuant to the said application, revenue entry No. 2981 came to be mutated in the revenue record in 1997, whereby, the names of petitioners and private respondents were reflected, as the joint owners. The private respondents preferred an application for removal of their names from the revenue record pertaining to the subject matter land and record the names of the petitioners, as the same was sold to the petitioners. The said declarations were also made in writing by the respondents before the revenue authorities in 2000. Pursuant thereto, revenue entry No. 3115 was mutated in the revenue records, which was subsequently certified in 2001. After a lapse of 13 years from the date of last revenue entry, the private respondents preferred RTS Appeals before the Deputy Collector in 2013. The Deputy Collector passed an order in 2015, whereby, cancelled the entry Nos. 2804, 2981, 3114 and 3115. Thereafter, the RTS Appeals under Section 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code came to be preferred before the Collector by the petitioners herein and the order of the Deputy Collector was upheld by the Collector in 2017. The petitioners herein have preferred the revision applications before the Special Secretary Revenue Department, however, the respondent no.4 dismissed the revision applications preferred by the petitioners and upheld the impugned orders passed by the respondent no.2 in 2018. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners approached the Court by preferring the present petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.4 under Rule-108 initiated after 23, 16 and 13 years from the date of mutation of entry, which is beyond the reasonable period. The petitioners have been owners of the subject land by way of a registered sale deed bearing no. 9080 dated 12.06.1984 and the same has not been disturbed or challenged except for challenge qua the entries. Further, by entry no. 3114, the procedure for defragmanting of the land was undertaken. The petitioners have been in possession of the subject matter land since 1984 and the said land is used for agriculture, cultivation, irrigation and hence, the object of fragmentation is also achieved. The petitioners are also paying the land revenue regularly. The private respondents themselves entered into a registered sale deed with the petitioners herein accorded consent under Section 135-D Notice and also the application for removal of the names of the private respondents were also accepted by the concerned authorities. Lastly, the parties have also arrived at a settlement, an affidavit is also duly produced which is referred to above. Further, there is compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties, and therefore, on that ground also, the dispute being a private nature between the parties and with the consensus among the parties as well as the learned AGP, the orders passed by the respondent authorities are required to be quashed and set aside, by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the suo-moto proceedings initiated by the Deputy Collector under Section 9 of the Act after a delay of 8 years were valid? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a notice under Section 6(2) of the Act prior to the initiation of the proceedings? 3. Whether the subsequent proceedings initiated by the private respondents under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code were barred by delay and latches?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.4 under Rule-108 initiated after 23, 16 and 13 years from the date of mutation of entry, which is beyond the reasonable period. The petitioners have been owners of the subject land by way of a registered sale deed bearing no. 9080 dated 12.06.1984 and the same has not been disturbed or challenged except for challenge qua the entries. Further, by entry no. 3114, the procedure for defragmanting of the land was undertaken. The petitioners have been in possession of the subject matter land since 1984 and the said land is used for agriculture, cultivation, irrigation and hence, the object of fragmentation is also achieved. The petitioners are also paying the land revenue regularly. The private respondents themselves entered into a registered sale deed with the petitioners herein accorded consent under Section 135-D Notice and also the application for removal of the names of the private respondents were also accepted by the concerned authorities. Lastly, the parties have also arrived at a settlement, an affidavit is also duly produced which is referred to above. Further, there is compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties, and therefore, on that ground also, the dispute being a private nature between the parties and with the consensus among the parties as well as the learned AGP, the orders passed by the respondent authorities are required to be quashed and set aside, by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to a notice under Section 6(2) of the Act prior to the initiation of the proceedings. 3. The Court held that the subsequent proceedings initiated by the private respondents under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code were barred by delay and latches.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed and the impugned orders dated 18th February, 2018 passed by the respondent no.4, the impugned order dated 17th July, 2017, passed by the respondent no.2 and the impugned orders dated 20th July, 2015 passed by the respondent no.3 were quashed and set aside.