1. Purchase of agricultural land — suo motu enquiry under Section 84-C, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — validity of sale deeds challenged. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1305
Supreme Court Of India
Decided On : (August 22, 1996)
MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN
Versus
FATMABAI IBRAHIM
Important Points
Statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time, even in the absence of a specific time limit.
Subject
Property Law - Land Acquisition and Tenancy
Act Referred
Headnote
Suo Motu Enquiry - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The court held that the suo motu power under Section 84-C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased survey plots, and the Mamlatdar initiated a suo motu enquiry under Section 84-C of the Act to question the validity of the sale deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suo motu power was not exercised within a reasonable time, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.
Issues: Validity of the sale deeds under Section 84-C of the Act, exercise of suo motu power within a reasonable time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that statutory powers should be exercised within a reasonable time, even if no specific time limit is prescribed.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
approved : State of Gujarat v. Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah
relied on : State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, 1969 2 SCC 187
Ram Chand v. Union of India, 1994 1 SCC 44
approved : State of Gujarat v. Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah
relied on : State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, 1969 2 SCC 187
Ram Chand v. Union of India, 1994 1 SCC 44
Table of Contents
2. Non-discrimination among agriculturists under Section 63 — exercise of suo motu power beyond a reasonable time. (Para 2 )
3. Statutory powers lacking a prescribed time limit must be exercised within a reasonable time to prevent irreparable injury to the party. (Para 2 )
4. Where a statute vests power in an authority without prescribing a time-limit, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — impugned orders set aside. (Para 2 )
6. Does the absence of a prescribed time limit in a statute allow an authority to exercise its power at any time?
No. Where a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing a specific time-limit, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. (Para 2 )
7. What factors influence the determination of whether suo motu powers were exercised within a reasonable time?
The court considers the duration between the transaction and the initiation of the enquiry and whether the party is likely to suffer irreparable injury due to investments made. (Para 2 )
( 1 ) THE appellant by two registered sale deeds dated 11/12/1972 and 28/12/1972 purchased from the respondent Survey Plot No. 53 measuring an area of Ac. 3. 06 gunts and Survey Plot No. 372/1+2 measuring an area of Ac. 3. 18 gunts. On the basis of aforesaid purchase the name of the appellant was mutated in the record of rights on 14/2/1973. It appears that in September 1976 the Mamlatdar of the area concerned initiated a suo motu enquiry under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as applicable to the State of Gujarat, (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") in respect of the validity of the aforesaid sale deeds. On 29/4/19777 the Mamlatdar held that the sales in question were invalid as the appellant was not an agriculturist belonging to the State of Gujarat. The appeal, revision and the writ petition filed against the aforesaid order have been dismissed.
( 2 ) ALTHOUGH Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel appearing for the appellant took a stand that under Section 63 of the Act aforesaid, there should not be any discrimination amongst the agriculturists with reference to the State to which such agriculturist belongs. But according to him even without going into that question the impugned order can be set aside on the ground that suo motu power has not been exercised within a reasonable time. Section 84-C of the Act does not prescribe any time for initiation of the proceeding But in view of the settled position by several judgments of this court that wherever a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time-limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. In the present case the transfer took place as early as in the year 1972 and suo motu enquiry was started by the Mamlatdar in September 1973. If sale deeds are declared to be invalid the appellant is likely to suffer irreparable injury, because he has made investments after the aforesaid purchase. In this connection, on behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on ajudgment of Justice S. B. Majmudar (as he then was in the High court of Gujarat) in State of Gujarat v. Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah disposed of on 1/3/1990, where in connection with Section 84-C itself it was said that the power under the aforesaid section should be exercised within a reasonable time. This court in connection with other statutory provisions, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and in the case of Ram Chand v. Union of India has impressed that where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under Section 84-C ofthe Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs.
