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.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddarth Rami, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondents.

2. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

“9(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application ;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/BAKHAP/SUOMOTU/SURAT/2/2012;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No. MVV/BAKHAP/SUOMOTU/SURAT/2/2012;

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the names of the petitioners’ ancestor Shri Ramanlal Motiram came to be entered as Tenant in the second right of the land bearing Survey Nos.66/1, 67 and 68/A-1 admeasuring Hectors 2-88-34 at Nana Varachha, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat. The ancestor of the petitioners thereafter purchased the subject land from the original owner Shri Bhagabhai Nathabhai in the year 1949. Accordingly, mutation entry No.415 dated 01.12.1959 came to be effected in the revenue records in favour of Shri Ramanlal Motiram. That the subject land was shown as “Restricted Tenure” in the revenue records. Accordingly, an application was made to the Mamlatdar, Choryasi to correct such a mistake and that by mutation entry No.1014 dated 16.06.1988, the Mamlatdar, Choryasi removed the words “Restricted Tenure”. The said mutation entry No.1014 came to be set aside by the Dy. Collector and the same came to be confirmed by the Collector, Surat. Thereafter, Shri Ramanlal Motiram preferred revision application before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. By order dated 18.05.1995, the said revision application came to be partly allowed and the orders passed by the Dy. Collector as well as Collector, Surat came to be quashed and set aside and the case was remanded back for fresh consideration. Pursuant to such remand, the Dy. Collector vide order dated 25.02.1996 rejected the entry No.1014. That thereafter the petitioners’ ancestor Shri Ramanlal Motiram made an application under Section 84 (C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [“Act” for short] before the Mamlatdar & ALT (Tenancy), Choryasi for regularizing the sale in his favour and to remove the restrictions under Section 43 of the Act. By detailed order dated 30.09.1996, the Mamlatdar & ALT (Tenancy), Choryasi passed an order directing that if the applicant Shri Ramanlal Motiram pays a penalty of Re.1/- within 3 months, then the transaction would be regularized and the restrictions under Section 43 of the Act will be removed. Pursuant to the said order dated 30.09.1996, the petitioners’ ancestor Shri Ramanlal Motiram paid penalty of Re.1/- on 22.10.1996. The said order came to be implemented and the words “Restricted Tenure” came to be deleted. The said order dated 30.09.1996 was taken in review by the Dy. Collector which came to be upheld by the order dated 21.12.1996 passed by the Dy. Collector. Since the said orders dated 30.09.1996 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT (Tenancy), Choryasi and confirmed and upheld by the Dy. Collector vide order dated 21.12.1996 were not challenged further, the same attained finality.

4. Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petit