HARSHADBHAI DAHYABHAI DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to quash and set aside Annexures D and E i.e. order Annexure `D' passed by respondent no.2 on 18.1.88 in Fragmentation Case No. 4/87 and order Annexure `E' passed on 20.7.88 whereby the order Annexure : D is confirmed in Revision Application vide Annexure : `E'.

(2.) It is not disputed that vide Annexure : `A' dated 3.1.79/4.1.79, Assistant Collector, permitted Chhotubhai Kalyanji Desai to transfer the property being land situated in village Jujva in favour of Shri Harshadbhai Dahyabhai and Natvarlal Makanji. Considering the special facts, it seems that the permission was granted despite the fact that the land in question was covered under the provisions contained in Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is required to be noted that the sale deed was executed on 8th February, 1980 and entries were made in the relevant record. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 15th February, 1984. For the aforesaid facts, there is no dispute. Thus, it is very clear that after a period of about 4 years, show cause notice has been issued.

(3.) The Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors.(10 GLR P.992) considered the question of delay. Whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code at any time? The Apex Court pointed out that there is no period of limitation prescribed under section 211. But from the plain reading of this section, the Court pointed out that the power must be exercised within reasonable time and the length of reasonable time must be determined by the fats of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised. In the instant case, after the transfer of the property, investment has been made by the purchasers and have developed the land. In the case of Raghav Natha (Supra), in para 13, the Apex Court pointed out as under.