Authority must exercise revisional powers within a reasonable time to ensure legal rights are not unjustly compromised.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

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. The factual matrix in the present case is that, the petitioners have purchased the subject agricultural land from Mahadev Mulakpur Trust by registered sale deed dated 10.08.1987 after taking due permission from the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad. Pursuant to the said sale, revenue entry No.375 came to be mutated in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records and the said revenue entry also came to be certified on 21.12.1996. That the Collector, Banaskantha initiated suo motu proceedings No.8 of 2009 under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules on the ground that the petitioners are not agriculturists and that the sale has been made to non-agriculturists. The Collector, Banaskantha by order dated 15.12.2009 was pleased to cancel the mutation entry No.375 dated 04.07.1996 and further directed the Mamlatdar, Deodar to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [“Act” for short].

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.

Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application.

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 mutation entry No.375 in respect of the aforesaid sale came to be recorded in the revenue records and also came to be certified on 21.12.1996. He submits that the suo motu revision initiated by the Collector was barred by limitation since the same was initiated after 22 years from the date of execution of the sale deed and after more than 12 years from the certification of the mutation entry. He submits that by catena of decisions of this Court, it is well settled that such suo motu power of revision has to be exercised by the revenue authorities within a reasonable period of time. He submits that therefore, the said action of the Collector as upheld by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department is bad in law.

4. Per contra, Mr. Jeet Jotangia, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in the present case, it has been found that the petitioners were non-agriculturists. He submits that since the sale of agricultural land was made to non-agriculturists, suo motu proceedings were required to be initiated. He submits that accordingly suo motu proceedings came to be initiated by the Collector. He further submits that the Secretary (Appeals) has rightly upheld the order passed by the Collector. He submits that no interference is called for in the impugned orders and the Special Civil Application be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents and considered the submissions.

6. By a catena of decisions, it is well settled that the revenue authorities have to exercise suo motu powers in respect of cancellation of mutation entries within a reasonable period of time. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in “104. Moreover, the proceedings for eviction had b