IMPORTANT POINT
The exercise of revisional powers beyond a reasonable period can render the orders unjust, improper, and illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.8.2011 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) Ahmedabad in Revision No.MVV/HKP/Bhavan/13 of 2006 as well as order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar in R.O./Entry Revision Case/25/02-03.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah for learned advocate Mr. B.A. Surti appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4.

3. In this petition, notice was issued vide order dated 18.1.2012 and thereafter, vide order dated 27.8.2013, rule was issued and impugned order and proceedings were stayed pending final disposal of this petition.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of present petition are states as under :-

4.1 That the name of one Mr. Dhangar Bhagwangar was reflecting in the village Form No.6 in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.103 and 104, Mouje Pipardi Gam, Taluka Botad, District Bhavnagar admeasuring Hec.Are.Sq.meters 3-49-04 vide Entry No.45 dated 25.4.1957. Thereafter, the aforesaid land was purchased by the petitioner on 1.5.1972 from Dhangar Bhagwangar by way of a registered sale deed upon payment of consideration of Rs.3000/-. Some how the aforesaid sale deed, at the relevant point of time, though registering the name of present petitioner, for that no mutation entry was mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar expired on 19.11.1972 and his son viz. Keshavbhai Dhangar name was mutated vide entry No.387 on 10.2.1974. Thereafter, after more than 20 years, the name of present petitioner was mutated in the revenue record vide entry No. 809 on 1.9.1995 and the same was certified on 6.10.1995.

4.2 Since than the petitioner in possession of the land in question and his name was continued to remain in the revenue record. The land is being utilized by the petitioner for growing seasonal crops such as cotton and till and according to the petitioner that is the only source of income for the petitioner and his own family.

4.3 In the year 2002, the revenue authorities found some illegality in the land in question and therefore, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and initiated the proceedings on 16.4.2002 by way of R.O./Entry Revision Case No./25/02-03. Pursuant to the notice issued in respect of aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the authority and filed his reply. Ultimately, after hearing the parties, the Collector, Bhavnagar vide order dated 24.7.2006 cancelled the entry No. 809 dated 1.9.1995.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision application being Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Bhavan/13/2006 before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad and even the aforesaid revision application also was rejected by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad vide order dated 24.8.2011. Hence, being aggrieved by and being dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Krunal Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings are initiated beyond the reasonable period of time as defined by the Division Bench of this Court. According to learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah, the entry which was mutated on 1.9.1995 and was certified on 6.10.1995 was taken into suo-motu revision after a period of seven years in the year 2002, by initiating proceedings under Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. According to learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah, in view of the fact that the proceedings were initiated beyond the reasonable period of time, the proceedings were without jurisdiction and therefore, the same were without any authority and therefore, the same are required to be quashed and set aside.

6.1 It was also submitted by learned advocate Mr. Kunal Sh