JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. This intra Court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2019 delivered in Special Civil Application No. 18931 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge held that the order passed by the Collector in Appeal/Jaman/108(6) Case No. 83 of 2016 is bad in law and hence, quashed and set aside the order.

2. Facts are briefly stated as, the original petitioner has purchased land bearing survey No. 535/1 situated at village Thanpar, Tal: Rapar, Dist: Kachchh on 26.4.2005 from one Jayeshbhai Bhanji Patel, power of attorney holder of original owner Kuvarbai Akhaibhai Chaudhary, by way of registered sale deed No. 897. The registered sale deed has been given effect by the revenue department by mutating entry No. 607 in favour of the original petitioner on 26.2.2006 and certified on 27.9.2007. Subsequently, the Deputy Collector passed an order of promulgation and also passed an order giving effect of mutation entry No. 747 dated 16.9.2008 in the revenue records, which was certified on 26.12.2008. After a span of seven years, the Secretary and Commissioner (Land Development), Revenue Department, Gandhinagar addressed a letter dated 3.4.2012 to the Collector, Kachchh stating that the original petitioner and their family members are not agriculturists. The documents, which are produced for claiming to be agriculturist are fabricated and hence, there is breach of section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short “the Tenancy Act”). The letter indicates to take necessary steps. Pursuant to such letter, the Collector initiated suo motu proceedings and took the revenue entry into appeal under Rule 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules (in short “the Rules”) being case No. 83 of 2016. The order dated 19.8.2016 has culminated into proceedings, whereby the Collector dropped the proceedings and further directed the Mamlatdar and ALT, Rapar to carry out proceedings under sections 100 and 122 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kachchh Area) Act, 1958 and to complete the same within six months.

3. Since the action of the Collector has taken after a period of 10 years, the original petitioner approached the learned Single Judge by way of filing captioned Special Civil Application seeking relief to quash and set aside the order dated 19.8.2016 passed by the respondent No. 1-Collector in Appeal/Jaman/108(6)/Case No. 83 of 2016 and permanently restrain the respondent No. 2-Mamlatdar from taking any action in furtherance of the impugned order of respondent no. 1 and not to disturb mutation entry no. 607.

4. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition in two counts. Firstly, that the contemplation of the Collector for taking the suo motu review against the entry mutated and certified in the revenue records in the year 2006 after 10 years is in teeth of law as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Raghav Natha and Others, AIR 1969 SC 1297 and secondly, the Secretary (Revenue Department) has believed that the original petitioner and his family members are agriculturists. The order of the Special Secretary (Revenue Department) has been confirmed in Special Civil Application No. 16826 of 2014 and allied matters. The said order is affirmed in onward proceedings in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 1482 of 2014 by the Division Bench of this Court and in SLP (Diary) No. 44474 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. The above consideration has become reason for the learned Single Judge to allow the petition and to quash and set aside the order under challenge of the Collector. The State of Gujarat is aggrieved by the impugned order and as such takes the exception of it by filing this Letters Patent Appeal.

6. Heard learned AGP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the appellants and learned advocate Ms. Archana Acharya for the respondent-original petitioner.

7. Facts which are