Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Thakore Kapurji Mohanji – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case regarding land ownership and subsequent dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for petitioner focused on the delay in revisional action. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning emphasizes timeliness and fairness in legal disputes. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha in suo motu revision under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules and confirmed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision No.4 of 2010 by order dated 20.06.2016.
2.1 Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Revision No.4 of 2010 whereby the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department has upheld the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha dated 15.11.2009 and dismissed the revision application of the petitioners by order dated 20.06.2016.
3. Mr. N.D.Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the suo motu proceedings have been initiated by the Collector after a period of more than 22 years. He submits that the petitioners had purchased the subject land from Mahadev Mulakpur Trust by registered sale deed dated 10.08.1987. The mu
Authority must exercise revisional powers within a reasonable time to ensure legal rights are not unjustly compromised.
Revisional powers in land disputes must be exercised within a reasonable time; otherwise, established agricultural rights cannot be annulled.
Revisionary powers must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe; actions taken after significant delays are deemed unjustifiable, preserving the validity of transactions during that period.
Suo motu revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable period; delays result in the action being considered arbitrary and may infringe on established rights.
The delay of 11 years in exercising suo motu powers renders such actions arbitrary, violating established legal rights under registered sale deeds.
The court ruled that summary eviction proceedings under the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance must be initiated within a reasonable time, and transactions deemed invalid under Section 54 remain valid unt....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that actions under the Gharkhed Ordinance must be initiated within a reasonable time, and the concept of reasonable time is crucial in determini....
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
