Agriculturists from other states are recognized under Gujarat Tenancy Act; delay beyond reasonable period for revising agriculturist status renders proceedings void.

ORDER :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. Heard the learned AGP Mr.Jay Barot appearing for the petitioners.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 20.10.2014 passed in Revision Application No. TEN/B/95/05 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, whereby the said Revision Application has been dismissed.

3. The learned AGP, Mr. Jay Barot appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed on two grounds: first, that the suo motu revision proceedings have been taken up after a long period of time; and secondly, that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.602 of 2011 dated 08.08.2011, the respondent No.1 has the status of an agriculturist in the State of Rajasthan, and in view of the judgment of this Court, the petitioner is to be considered as an agriculturist for all purposes.

3. The learned AGP submits that the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.602 of 2011 dated 08.08.2011 relies upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Preethisingh Mukandsingh Shikh vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1608 . He submits that the said Full Bench judgment has been challenged in the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Civil Appeal No.2268-2298 of 2013 and the same is pending adjudication. He, therefore, submits that till the final outcome of the said Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondent is to be held as a non-agriculturist for the State of Gujarat, even if he is holding an agriculturist certificate from any other State.

3.1. The learned AGP further submits that the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has therefore erred in dismissing the Revision Petition. Further, the learned AGP submits that once the petitioner is held to be a non-agriculturist, the suo motu proceedings, even if undertaken after a period of 15 years, shall not be affected by the fact that such an action has to be taken within a reasonable time. He submits that on this issue also, the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has erred holding that the action taken after 15 years cannot be said to be within a reasonable time.

4. Per contra, the learned advocate, Mr.Manan Shah appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the issue of delay in initiating suo motu proceedings is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. He submits that in the present case, the land has been purchased by the respondent No.1, firstly, on 16.03.1988 by way of a registered sale-deed, for which the Mutation Entry No.2221 dated 02.09.1989 came to be effected and also came to be certified on 27.10.1989. That thereafter, the respondent No.1 has purchased another agricultural land by registered sale-deed dated 31.07.1996, for which Mutation Entry No.2621 dated 28.02.2000 came to be effected and duly certified on 31.03.2000. He submits that the said Mutation Entries came to be taken up in suo motu revision by issuing Notice dated 05.05.2003. He submits that therefore, the suo motu revision and proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act came to be initiated after a period of 15 years on the ground that petitioner is not an agriculturalist of the State of Gujarat.

4.1. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submits that the suo motu revision proceedings initiated are barred by limitation as the same are not within reasonable period of time. This Court, by various decisions, has held that in such cases, the reasonable time for initiating suo motu revision proceedings is one year. He, therefore, submits that the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has rightly held that the proceedings initiated are barred by limitation having not been initiated within a reasonable p