Where no limitation period is prescribed for the exercise of statutory power, such authority must be exercised within a reasonable time. Initiating suo motu proceedings challenging decades-old land transactions is arbitrary and violates the requirement of reasonableness in administrative decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. By filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provision of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “Revenue Code” for short, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.01.2007/27.12.2006 passed by the respondent – Secretary in Revision Application No.JMN/AML/17/2003, the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the respondent – Collector and the order dated 25.07.2002 passed by the respondent – Deputy Collector.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under,

3.1 The land bearing Survey No.24 pk. admeasuring 8 Acre 08 Guntha was allotted to one Ranchhodbhai Laxmanbhai by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on permanent basis on 05.05.1958 on certain terms and conditions and pursuant thereto, entry came to be mutated in favour of the said Ranchhodbhai Laxmanbhai and after taking over possession of the land in question, he was cultivating the said land upto 1980.

3.2 On 12.05.1980, the said Ranchhodbhai Laxmanbhai had executed registered sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner and since then, the petitioner is in possession of the said land and carrying out agricultural activities and the name of the petitioner was also entered into revenue record.

3.3 However on 21.02.2002, the learned Mamlatdar forwarded proposal to the respondent – Deputy Collector for initiating action against the petitioner and the original land owner for committing breach of the conditions and pursuant thereto, the respondent – Deputy Collector issued notice under Section 68 of the Revenue Code on 01.05.2002, pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply.

3.4 The respondent – Deputy Collector, by an order dated 25.07.2002, rejected the case of the petitioner and ordered to confiscate the land in the name of Government.

3.5 Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the respondent – Collector, who by an order dated 21.04.2003, rejected the said Appeal.

3.6 Aforesaid orders of the respondent – Collector as well as the respondent – Deputy Collector were challenged before the respondent – Secretary by filing revision application, however, the respondent – Secretary, by impugned order dated 09.01.2007/ 27.12.2006, rejected the said revision application.

3. Heard learned advocate, Dharmesh Shah for the petitioners and learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah for the respondents.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchase of the land in question by way of executing registered sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner by the original land owner on payment of entire sale consideration. He submitted that in fact, the land in question has been allotted to the said Ranchhodbhai Laxmanbhai by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on permanent basis on certain terms and conditions, however, the said land was not granted on santhani basis and after the purchase of the said land, entry came to be mutated in the revenue record on the strength of the registered sale deed and thus, there was no breach of any of the terms and conditions as alleged but despite the said fact, a proposal was prepared and forwarded by the learned Mamlatdar to the respondent – Deputy Collector, who in turn, without proper application of mind, issued notice upon the petitioner and original land owner under S