Suo motu revisional powers, even where no specific statutory time limit is prescribed, must be exercised within a reasonable period. Unreasonable delay in challenging settled transactions, coupled with a failure to consider material evidence, renders the exercise of such power arbitrary and invalid.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. By filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 and under Rule 4 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.01.2015 passed by the respondent – Assistant Collector, Bardoli and thereby prayed for declaration that the land bearing Survey No.74/1 pk. situated in Village : Mahuva is not subjected to any restrictions under Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1979.

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

2.1 One Bhanabhai Kikabhai was holding land bearing Survey Nos.46 & 47 situated in the sim of Village : Mahuva as a capacity of tenant, which he was cultivating to run his livelihood.

2.2 Thereafter in the year 1983, the proceedings under Section 32(C) came to be initiated, wherein the said Bhanabhai Kikabhai has been declared as protected tenant and pursuant thereto, he had paid purchase price and he became the absolute owner and occupier of the land in question and pursuant thereto, Entry No.1004 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 15.07.1983 and since then, he was in occupation of the land in question.

2.3 Thereafter, the said Bhanabhai Kikabhai had applied for conversion of the land, which was considered by the revenue authority and accordingly, the said Bhanabhai Kikabhai had also paid premium for the same and Entry No.1604 came to be mutated on 20.03.2006, which was subsequently certified on 26.06.2006.

2.4 Thereafter on 17.05.2006, the said Bhanabhai Kikabhai had executed registered sale deed in favour of Balvantbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and others and on the strength of the said registered sale deed, Entry No.1644 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 15.01.2007, which was subsequently certified on 18.07.2007.

2.5 Thereafter on 07.07.2011, the said Balvantbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and others have executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners and on the basis of the registered sale deed, Entry No.1868 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 03.09.2011 and certified also and since then, the petitioners are absolute owner and occupier of the land bearing Survey No.74/1 and their names were also running in the revenue record.

2.6 Thereafter, the petitioners have applied for NA permission from the revenue authority by submitting appropriate application along with required documents and pursuant thereto, necessary opinion from the concerned revenue authorities was called for.

2.7 Pursuant to the same, concerned Mamlatdar had given opinion that Bahanabhai Kikabhai is “Adivasi” and included in scheduled tribe, therefore, the aforesaid land is having restriction under Section 73AA of the Revenue Code, therefore, the sale transaction taken place without prior permission of the competent authority, therefore, it was opined to take appropriate action.

2.8 Therefore on the basis of the aforesaid opinion, the concerned Deputy Collector issued notice on 14.04.2013 to the petitioners and the respondent nos.3 to 5 herein to show cause as to why the proceedings should not be initiated against them for committing breach of Section 73AA of the Revenue Code and thereby Entry No.1644 dated 15.01.2007 and Entry No.1868 dat