Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. J. Joshi, J
Morarji Ratnshi Tatariya Suthar – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8663 of 2017|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13125 of 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vimal A Purohit, Mrugesh A Barot
For the Respondents: Jay Trivedi

Suo motu revisional powers must be exercised within the statutory limitation period if prescribed. In the absence of a specific limit, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable time; an inordinate, unexplained delay of decades is arbitrary, violates the rule of law, and is legally unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - Section 110 - Revisional powers of authorities - Limitation period for suo motu revision - Proviso to subsection (1) explicitly mandates that no record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of the impugned order - Failure to observe the statutory period renders the proceedings without jurisdiction and null and void. (Paras 12, 13)

(B) Land Revenue Rules - Rule 108(6) - Suo motu power - Inordinate and unexplained delay - Powers exercised after a period of over three decades are arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law - Judicial precedents establish that even where no time limit is explicitly prescribed, powers must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The dispute concerns the validity of long-standing revenue entries for ancestral land. After several decades of undisturbed occupation and ownership based on family partition and inheritance, administrative authorities initiated suo motu proceedings to question these entries and the status of the landholders as agriculturists. The lower authorities had cancelled the entries, which culminated in the present writ petitions challenging those orders.

Findings of Court:
The revisional authority acted in clear violation of the statutory time limit prescribed by the Act. Furthermore, the initiation of proceedings under revenue rules after roughly 32 years constitutes a gross abuse of power. The authorities failed to justify the delay or produce evidence of fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation that would warrant such late interference with established property rights.

Issues: The primary questions addressed were whether the exercise of suo motu revisional powers is legally sustainable after the expiration of the statutory limitation period, and whether the invocation of such powers after an inordinate delay of several decades violates the principles of reasonableness and the rule of law.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute prescribes a strict limitation period for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, any action initiated beyond that period is void ab initio. In instances where no specific limitation period is fixed, the authority is still bound by the principle that power must be exercised within a reasonable time, as perpetual vulnerability to administrative review would compromise legal certainty and the quiet enjoyment of property.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders quashed and set aside; original mutation entries restored.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of related writ applications concerning ancestral land mutation and administrative orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding the collector's jurisdiction to initiate delayed suo motu revision proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. recognition of ancestral land rights and validity of long-standing mutual family property settlements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. suo motu revisionary powers are constrained by statutory time limits and must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. final order quashing illegal administrative proceedings and restoring original revenue entries. (Para 19)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No



==========================================================

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Since the issues involved in both the captioned writ applications are interrelated, arising out of the very selfsame mutation entries, and the writ applicant is also the same, those were heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. By these writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8663 OF 2017

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/AK/14 OF 2014 as well as order dated 01.10.2014 passed by Ld. Dist.Collector, Kutch passed in Sankalan/Appeal/Ten/110 case No.09 of 2012 and further be pleased to uphold the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by Ld. Special Mamlatdar, Bhuj;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the proceedings initiated by the Ld. Dist. Collector u/s 110 of the Tenancy Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law;

(C ) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation, execution of the impugned order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/AK/14 of 2014 as well as order dated 01.10.2014 passed by Ld. Dist.Collector, Kutch passed in Sankalan/Appeal/Ten/110 case No.09 of 2012;

(D) xxx xxx xxx

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13125 OF 2016

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 authority in Revision Application No.HKP/Kutch/45/2014 as well as the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by Ld. Dist. Collector, Kutch in JMN/108(6)/Case No.99/2012 and further be pleased to hold and declare that the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the learned District Collector is bad in law and without jurisdiction;

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation, execution of the impugned order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 authority in Revision Application No.HKP/Kutch/45/2014 as well as the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by Ld. Dist. Collector, Kutch in JMN/108(6)/Case No.99/2012;

3. As the facts and the background of both the captioned writ applications are more or less same except the nature of the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Collector, the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding both these applications, can be gathered from Special Civil Application No.8663 of 2017 by treating the same as the lead matter, which are as under;

3.1 Land bearing Survey No.421 admeasuring H 3.89.51 square meters, Survey No.520/3 admeasuring H 1.22.42 square meters and Survey No.416/14 admeasuring H 0.38.45 square meters of village: Mithirohar, Taluka: Gandhidham, District: Kutch ( for short ‘land in question’)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADDivyesh A. J. Joshi, JMorarji Ratnshi Tatariya Suthar – AppellantVersusGujarat Revenue Tribunal – RespondentR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8663 of 2017|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13125 of 2016

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Divyesh A. J. Joshi, J
Morarji Ratnshi Tatariya Suthar – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8663 of 2017|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13125 of 2016