The strict period of limitation under Section 202 does not apply to the initiation of proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, as they are summary proceedings for making alterations in revenue records.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioners are the opposite parties to the proceedings, which were being held under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, to which, the cognizance has been taken by the Court of Tehsildar, Berinag, District Pithoragarh, while exercising his suo moto powers, under Section 202 of the Land Revenue Act, as has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners.

2. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the initiation of the proceedings in pursuance to the issuance of the notice, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition i.e. dated 19th January, 2021, is without competence, and the issue of competence has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the pretext that there are two judgments, on which, he wants to place reliance, a judgment, which has been rendered by Gujrat High Court, in R/Special Civil Application No. 23469 of 2007, Hasmukhbhai Dahyalal Soni Vs. Collector, Gandhinagar, particularly, he has made reference to para 9 of the said judgment, which is referred to hereunder :-

"(9) That despite the facts as aforesaid, the Respondent, after a gross delay, on date 26-7-2007, issued a notice to the present Petitioners as also to the sisters of the present Petitioners to take the Mutation Entries Nos. 12834, 13210 and 14144 into suo-moto revision under Section 211 of the Code and to cancel the same, only on the grounds that the Will, Annexure A herein, is not probated and no pedigree is produced of the person making the said Will, without applying mind to the relevant provisions of The Succession Act and the Code, and the facts as are clearly reflected in the entries produced at Annexure C herein and even the Registered Sale-Deed at Annexure B herein, and, as such, the said notice itself is clearly without jurisdiction and causing undue harassment to the C/SCA/23469/2007 JUDGMENT present Petitioners. A copy of the said Notice is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE 'E' to the present petition."

3. The second judgment, on which, he has placed reliance is, on a judgment, which was arising from the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, which travelled upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its decision, which was rendered in Appeal (Civil) No. 4808 of 2007, State of Punjab and others Vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd., while determining the aspect of grant and exercise of suo moto powers, which could be exercised by the Court, has observed that even if the statutory grant of suo moto powers, has had to be exercised, within a reasonable time frame, if it aims at for reopening of the order of an assessment therein, which was arising out of Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The principle, which has laid down therein in para 20 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein, in fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with an aspect of an exercise of suo moto powers for drawing a revisional proceedings under Taxing Law, where under the said backdrop of the intention of the legislation, which was sought to be enforced pertaining to imposing a tax, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the suo moto powers could be exercised by the Revisional Court under the Taxing Law, has had to be within a reasonable period, and there cannot be any undue delay for initiation of proceedings. Para 20 of the said judgment reads as under :-

"20. In S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (1976) 37 STC 425, Untwalia J., speaking for the Bench, opined : Appropos the fourth and last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suo motu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so done. Within a few months of the passing of the appellate order by the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner proceeded to revise and revised the said order. There was no undue or unreasonable delay made by the Commissioner. It may be stated here that