MITHALAL BRIJLAL JAIN Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat dated 5.1.1991 passed in RTS Revision Application No. 81 of 1990 in setting aside the mutation entries No. 5071 and 6093 dated 26.4.1983 with respect to land bearing survey Nos. 807 and 808 situated at Ichhapore Surat as well as the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 29.10.1991 and the impugned order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat dated 12.10.1992 passed in Revision Application No.55 of 1991 in dismissing the said revision application and confirming the order passed by both the authorities below in canceling the aforesaid mutation entries.

(2.) Shri Kunal Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that Deputy Collector exercise the suo motu revisional power to take the aforesaid mutation entries in suo motu revision after a period of 8 years which was not permissible. It is submitted that even otherwise on the alleged breach of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act the Deputy Collector was not justified in setting aside the mutation entries more particularly, when the petitioner purchased the said land by registered sale deed. It is submitted that consequently Collector as well as Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat have materially erred in confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector in quashing and setting aside the aforesaid mutation entries No. 5071 and 6013. Shri Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel Through P.A. Holder Ashok J. Patel Vs. Kanchaben Nathubhai Patel & Others reported in 2005(3) GLR 2233. By making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) Ms. Trusha Patel, learned AGP while supporting the order passed by all the authorities below has submitted that as it was found that the transaction in favour of the petitioner was hit by Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, Deputy Collector was justified in canceling the mutation entries No. 5071 and 6093 and referring the matter to the appropriate authority for initiation of the proceedings for breach of provision of Bombay Tenancy Act. It is submitted that thereafter the appropriate authority has directed the Mamlatdar and ALT to initiate the proceedings for breach of Section 2(6) and Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, which cannot be said to be illegal and / or arbitrary and / or de-hors the provision of statute, therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application.