Revenue authorities in summary jurisdictions cannot adjudicate complex questions of civil title or the validity of testamentary documents. Suo motu revisional powers under revenue laws must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe, typically interpreted as three years, and cannot be invoked after an inordinate, unexplained delay.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1) By way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners herein have prayed for following reliefs:

‘’(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.5.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VDD/202/12;23.5.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 23.5.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/VDD/202/12;

(C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief and/or order in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioners.’’

2) The case of the petitioner can be summarized in the nutshell as under:

2.1) The land bearing Block Nos. 508/A and 508/B situated at Village Amaliyara, Taluka and District Vadodara, originally belonged to Shri Raghunathbhai Lalabhai. After his demise, the names of his wife and legal heirs came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 1208 dated 22.04.1975. Thereafter, Bai Suri, the wife of Raghunathbhai, executed a Will on 16.05.1988, prior to her demise on 24.11.1989, whereby Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were declared as beneficiaries in respect of the said land. Pursuant to the execution of the registered Will, Entry No. 1641 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 22.10.1993, which was subsequently certified on 28.11.1993. Subsequently, in the year 2012, the Collector, Vadodara, initiated suo motu proceedings under the provisions of Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. The said proceedings were initiated, inter alia, on the grounds that: (i) the land in question was of new and impartible tenure; and (ii) the revenue record reflected the names of two other persons along with Bai Suri, indicating that the property was ancestral in nature, and therefore, she had no right to execute a Will in favour of third parties. Notices came to be issued, and ultimately, the concerned Collector concluded that Entry No. 1641 dated 22.10.1993 was not in consonance with the statutory provisions of law and, therefore, required to be cancelled. Accordingly, the said entry was quashed and set aside.

2.2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the Collector, a Revision Application came to be preferred before the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals). The said appeal was allowed by the competent authority. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals), the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

3) Heard learned advocate Ms. Nishi Patel appearing on behalf of H. L. Patel Advocates for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta for Respondent No. 1.

4) Learned advocate Ms. Nishi Patel, appearing on behalf of H. L. Patel Advocates for the applicant, has submitted that the order passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) is unjust, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition. She has emphatically submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the property in question originally belonged to the ancestors of the petitioners. After the demise of the