Statutory powers lacking explicit limitation periods must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe. Initiating suo motu proceedings after an inordinate delay is arbitrary and legally unsustainable, while revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate an individual's agricultural status in summary mutation proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Divyesh A. Joshi, J.

1. By filing present petition under Articles 14, 21, 300A, 226 and 227 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 05.06.2013 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/ AML/69/2010 and the order dated 27.08.2010 passed by the respondent no.2 and thereby prayed for restoration of Entry Nos.1612 & 1742

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. P.J. Kanabar for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Kanabar for the petitioner referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the father of the petitioner had purcahsed land ebaring Survey No.135 situated in the sim of Village : Sama Padar, Taluka : Savarkundla, District : Amreli by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, entry came to be mutated in the revenue record. He submitted that thereafter, the father of the petitioner was granted land bearing Survey No.452/1 by the Deputy Collector, Mahuva, which was new tenure land and accordingly, Entry Nos.1149 & 1179 came to be mutated in the revenue record, which were also subsequently certified also. He submitted that thereafter the father of the petitioner passed away, therefore, succession entry came to be mutated in the land bearing Survey No.135 pk. as also in the land bearing Survey No.452/1 pk. being Entry No.1242 on 15.07.1967 and thereby the petitioner being heir happens to be an agriculturist since 1967. He submitted that thereafter on 01.01.1985, the petitioner and three others had purchased land bearing Survey No.43 pk.3 by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, entry came to be mutated, however subsequently the said land was transferred to one another. He submitted that thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent no.3 herein both had purchased land bearing Survey No.225 pk. situated in the sim of Village : Badhda, Taluka : Savarkundala by way of executing registered sale deed and pursuant thereto, Entry No.1612 came to be mutated in revenue record on 03.12.1993, which was subsequently certified on 06.01.1994. He, submitted that however after a period of more than 15 years, the respondent no.2 had initiated suo motu proceedings by taking the aforesaid entry into review on the ground of breach of the provision of law and the petitioner has been served with the notice to show cause as to why the said entry should not be cancelled, to which, detailed reply was submitted along with necessary document, however, the respondent no.2, without considering the contents of the reply, cancelled the aforesaid entry by an order dated 27.08.2010, against which, revision application was preferred before the respondent no.1, however, the said revision application has been rejected by an an order dated 05.06.2013, therefore, the present petition has been preferred challenged the aforesaid orders.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Kanabar submitted that the reason behind initiation of suo motu proceedings was that the petitioner does not have status of agriculturist, therefore, Entry No.1612 was taken into suo motu, however when the notice was served upon the petitioner, detailed reply was submitted, which is produced on record, wherein it has been specifically stated that the father of the petitioner was agriculturist, who was having land bearing Survey No.135, which was purchased by him as well as land bearing Survey No.452/1, which was granted by the Government and both are situated in Village : Sama Padar, Taluka : Savarku