Revisional powers in land disputes must be exercised within a reasonable time; otherwise, established agricultural rights cannot be annulled.

ORDER :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. By the present Special Civil Application, the petitioner is impugning the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 Collector, Amreli in Revision Case No.107 of 2012, which has been upheld by the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.90 of 2013.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the agricultural land bearing survey Nos.33/1, 34/1, 34/2 and 35/2 admeasuring 97812 sq.mtrs, situated at Village Timbi, Taluka Jafarabad, District Amreli for valuable consideration by way of registered sale deed dated 16.01.2009. On the basis of the said sale deed, the revenue entry No.2660 came to be effected in favour of the petitioner on 08.04.2009, which came to be certified on 26.08.2009. That thereafter, by way of revenue entry No.2767, the names of the legal heirs of the petitioner also came to be added in the revenue record and this mutation entry also came to be certified by the competent authority on 07.06.2010. That thereafter, the respondent No.2 Collector exercised suo motu revisional powers under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code Rules and initiated the proceedings being Revision Case No.107 of 2012. The notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 07.08.2012. By the order dated 22.08.2013, the learned Collector, Amreli was pleased to set aside the mutation entry Nos.2660 and 2767 in favour of the petitioners holding that the petitioners are not the agriculturists and therefore, were not entitled to purchase and hold the agricultural land in question. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the said order in the revision proceedings before the learned Secretary (Appeals), who, by the order dated 29.01.2016, was pleased to uphold the order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the learned Collector and rejected the Revision Application No.90 of 2013 preferred by the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel Mr. Salil M. Thakore appearing for the petitioners submits that the suo motu revisional powers have been exercised by the learned Collector after a period of more than 3½ years. He submits that by catena of decisions, this Court has held that such suo motu revisional powers have to be exercised within a reasonable period of time. He submits that the petitioners are the agriculturists and they are holding and cultivating the land in question even as on today. He submits that the proceedings initiated by the learned Collector are barred by limitation and hence, the same is invalid in law. The learned counsel submits that the impugned orders, therefore, be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Desai appearing for the respondent authorities submits that though the revisional powers have been exercised after a period of more than 3½ years, the learned Collector has rendered a categorical finding that the petitioner was not an agriculturist and the mutation entries were certified on the basis of the statement that the petitioner was a daughter of an agriculturist. He submits that the said statement was later on found to be false statement and therefore, the learned Collector was justified in initiating the suo motu proceedings since the sale of the land in question was contrary to the provisions of the Act as the petitioner was not an agriculturist. He submits that the proceedings, therefore, were justified in law and the petitioner has not been able to prove that she was an agriculturist before the authorities below. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for and the Special Civil Application be dismissed.

5. Head the learned counsels for the