NALINKUMAR R PATEL Vs. TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.P.J. Vyas for the petitioner. The petitioner-purchaser of land bearing Survey No.327/1 and 327/2 by registered sale deed dated 17th February 1986, admeasuring 6 acres, 13 gunthas from respondent no.8-Vinodchandra Harilal Mehta, who in turn purchased this land by registered sale deed 19th May 1981, is before this Court as the Government issued notice to show cause to its original owners in the year 1986 in the month of June dated Nil, as to why order dated 18th October 1980 granting Non-Agricultural Permission passed by Taluka Development Officer, Halol be not cancelled. In the meantime, the authority also directed the parties to maintain status quo of the land, thereby prevented the petitioner from putting the land to any use. The Show Cause Notice reached the petitioner only in the year 1988 when the authority addressed a letter dated 1st August 1988 to the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure 'A', page 20, wherein it is mentioned that Taluka Development Officer, Halol, by order dated 18th November 1980 granted Non-Agricultural Permission for land admeasuring 25596 sq. meters of Survey No.327 of Village Baska, Taluka Halol for the purpose of industry. That the said order granting Non-Agricultural Permission is not just and legal for the reasons set out in the Show Cause Notice accompanied to this letter. It is further mentioned that it is decided by the authorities to take the order in suo motu revision under section 211 of the Land Revenue Code. This letter (Show Cause Notice) was replied by the petitioner. A copy of that reply is at Annexure 'B', page 25. It is specifically mentioned in the reply that the land in question is in possession of the petitioner since 21st February 1986 and that when the land was purchased it was already a Non-Agricultural land. It is also mentioned that the same was purchased from respondent no.8 herein-Shri Vinodchandra Harilal Mehta.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr.Vyas emphatically submitted that it is settled legal position by series of judgements of this Court that power to take any order in suo motu revision under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can be so exercised within a reasonable time, and the decisions have set out a period of one year as reasonable period for taking any order in suo motu revision. In this regard learned advocate Mr.Vyas relied upon a decision of this Court [Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.C. Patel (as he then was)] dated 16th January 1995 in Special Civil Application No.1651 of 1987 and other matters. The relevant for our purpose is set out in paras 3 and 4 of the said judgment, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference.

(3.) IT is required to be noted that after the permission was granted, the petitioners had put up huge constructions on the land and various factories are being run on the said lands. Petitioners are also employing a large number of persons. In some of the cases, petitioners were not heard at all before passing the impugned orders. On account of a long intervening period, titles have been passed on to the petitioner and the state Government ought to have taken this into consideration. There is no explanation as to why there has been delay in exercising revisional powers.