The court emphasized the need for timely action in land revenue matters, particularly when familial arrangements are involved, and ruled against the cancellation of a long-standing revenue entry due to significant delay.

ORDER : 

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi on behalf of the petitioner who by way of this petition challenges an order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/TP/53/2019 which confirms an order passed by the Collector, Tapi dated 14.08.2018 in RTS/ Suo Motu/ Case No. 106 of 2016.

3. Considering the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Modi and having perused the documents on record, it would appear that land in question was originally held by one Paniyabhai Gamit, who happened to be the maternal grandfather of the present petitioner. It would appear that the property in question, had devolved upon the petitioner by way of a family partition more particularly the maternal uncle of the petitioner having given the land in question to the petitioner by way of a family arrangement. The same having been recorded and certified in the revenue record vide entry no. 1039, the certification being dated 06.04.1991. It would appear in this regard that the entry had been taken in suo motu revision after a period of around 26 years and whereas by the order of the Collector the said entry had been cancelled and whereas the said order had been confirmed by the SSRD.

4. Prima facie it would appear to this Court that the land had devolved upon the petitioner by way of a family partition and whereas as noticed hereinabove, the petitioner was the maternal grandson of the original owner of the property and the nephew of the person who had given the land to the present petitioner by way of a family arrangement. It would also pertinent to note that the entire transaction was almost 26 years old and whereas without any reference to the interregnum delay, the authority had initiated suo motu proceedings.

5. Having regard to the prima facie observations, more particularly since it does not appear that the land had been given to a person unrelated and furthermore since it appears that the present is a case of family arrangement, and since it also appears that suo motu proceedings had been initiated after gross delay, hence interference is required. Hence issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 01.05.2025.

6. By way of interim relief order passed by the Special Secretary dated 16.10.2024 and order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Collector, Tapi shall remain stayed subject to the petitioner maintaining status quo as regards the revenue record.

7. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent-State. Direct service for rest of the respondents is permitted.