ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for the prayer iner alia that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.34 of 1992 dated 6.2.1994 at Annexure-D confirming the order passed by the lower authority (Collector), Bharuch in Appeal No.21 of 1990 at Annexure-C may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the petition.

2. Heard learned Advocate Shri Chinmay M. Gandhi for the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Manan Mehta for Respondent No.2 as well as learned Advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera for Respondent No.1.

3. The short point, which arose in the present case is with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 73A of the Code in purported exercise of which the order came to be passed. Learned Advocate Shri Gandhi referred to the background of the facts and submitted that as stated in the order, the land was given to the petitioner by tribal Jitabhai Soniabhai Tadvi, who, by a registered sale deed dated 23.7.1976 sold this land in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Collector in purported exercise of power under Section 73A and 73AA of the Code on the ground that there is a violation of the provisions of the government instructions that such a land could not be sold or transferred to non-tribal, and therefore, it would revert to the government. Learned Advocate Shri Gandhi however submitted that the amendment was brought into force in the year 1980, which will not be applicable to the facts of the case as the sale was already made in 1976. He therefore submitted that the present petition may be allowed. He also submitted that the exercise of power beyond the reasonable period of 12 years is also illegal as the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in a judgment reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788 - Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya and ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. has made the observation that such power cannot be exercised beyond a reasonable period, and therefore, it is submitted that the present petition may be allowed.

4. Learned AGP Shri Manan Mehta referred to the papers and also the affidavit in support of his contention with regard to the transfers made without any permission or following the procedure. He submitted that such a land which have been allotted cannot be transferred without necessary permission as it would otherwise result in violation of statutory provisions of Section 73A and 73AA, and therefore, the purported exercise of powers cannot be said to be illegal.

5. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Shri Gandhi has referred to the additional affidavit to highlight the fact that from 1976, after a period of 14 years, the things have changed and the market committee has constructed its own building on the ground of estoppel also now the order cannot be sustained. He further submitted that as submitted, statutory rights could be exercised within a reasonable period, and as in the facts of the case, which is much delayed, when the things have totally changed, it would not be justified, and therefore, the present petition may be allowed.

6. In view of this rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition can be entertained and the impugned order could be sustained or not.

7. It is evident from the background of the facts that originally it was a land of Rajpipla State and thereafter there was some settlement, which has also been referred to. Therefore, once there was some settlement and the land in question has been sold by a registered sale deed way back on 21.6.1976 with the necessary permission at the relevant time by the TDO, such exercise of power after 12 years would not be justified. However, as rightly pointed out, the provisions of Section 73A could not be attracted as the same ha