Suo motu revisional powers, when not governed by a specific statutory time limit, must be exercised within a reasonable period. Initiating such proceedings after an inordinate delay of 27 years is arbitrary, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable, as it disturbs long-standing records and settles matters that have attained finality.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. By way of preferring present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following main relief/s:

“[A] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

[B] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order or direction to quash and set aside the orders impugned being order 18.07.2009 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar and the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Gujarat State at ANNEXURE A colly thereby declaring it to be illegal and non est in the eyes of law.”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent – State. Though served, none appears for private respondents.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioners has referred the facts of the petition and submitted that the respondent No.3 is the real brother of deceased husband of respondent No.4 and father of respondent Nos. 5 to 9 viz. Veerchand Devchand Gosrani. The said Veerchand Devchand Gosrani was holding land bearing Survey No.70 of village Kansumra, Taluka & District Jamnagar, total admeasuring 16 Acres and 21 Gunthas. Upon the sad demise of Veerchand Devchand Gosrani, name of the private respondents being the legal heirs of deceased Veerchand Devchand Gosrani came to be mutated in the revenue record vide heirship entry No.548. However, the said entry No.548 has been cancelled for technical reason primarily on account of non verification of heirs. Thereafter, once again the names of the legal heirs of deceased Veerchand Devchand Gosrani have been mutated in the revenue record vide entry no.561. It is further submitted that simultaneously, entry No.562 also came to be entered into the revenue record pertaining to the land bearing Survey No.70 based upon the family settlement. As per the family settlement, half of the total land admeasuring 16 Acres and 21 Gunthas i.e. 8 Acres and 10 Gunthas (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘subject land’ for short) came into the share of respondent No.3 i.e. the real brother of deceased Veerchand Devchand Gosrani and remaining land came into the share of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 herein.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar submits that the aforesaid entry Nos. 561 and 562 came to be mutated on 23.08.1978 and certified on 23.11.1978. However, almost after lapse of period of 27 years, the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 have preferred suit for the subject land before the competent Civil Court against the respondent No.3 for declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia, praying for declaration to the effect that only the heirs of deceased Veerchand Devchand Gosrani i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are the owners of the subject land and respondent No.3 herein being the brother of deceased Veerchand Devchand Gorsani has no legal right over the subject land and consequently declare the entry Nos. 561 and 562 as illegal and not tenable in the eye of law. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar submits that during the pendency of the said suit, settlement came to be arrived at between the parties and on account of the said settlement, the suit came to be withdrawn by the respondent Nos. 4 to 9. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has read the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and submitted that the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 herein have settled the dispute with the respondent No.3 on receipt of payment of Rs.15 lakh for the subject land from the respondent No.3 herein. Thus, on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, the suit came to be withdrawn.

5. Lea