CHIMANLAL BHUKANDAS Vs. SPECIAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in HKP/33/95 as well as the order dated 4.7.1995 passed by the Collector, Surat in suo motu revisional proceeding in RTS Revision No.163 of 1994 and prays that entry No.595 dated 30.5.1989 in Village Form No.6 and 7/12 of the revenue record be restored.

(2.) The facts stated briefly are that one Madhubhai Premabhai was the owner of the land bearing revenue Survey No.3/2, Block No.5, situated at village Khazod, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat admeasuring 15 are and 3 square yards (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land"). Madhubhai Premabhai passed away on 28.3.1973. It is the case of the petitioners that, in 1970, Madhubhai Premabhai had executed a will in favour of Chimanbhai Bhukhandas (the father of the petitioner's herein) whereby he had bequeathed the subject land to him. Upon the death of Madhubhai Premabhai, on 30.5.1989, by mutation entry No.595, the name of Chimanbhai Bhukhandas came to be entered in the village form No.6, which came to be duly certified.

(3.) Mr. Amit Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that in this case, mutation entry No.595 came to be made on 30.5.1989 on the basis of the will executed by deceased Madhubhai Premabhai in favour of the petitioner. The said entry was certified on 20.7.1989. It was submitted that suo motu powers of revision under sub-rule (6) of rule 108 of the rules came to be exercised by Collector, Surat, by issuing a show-cause notice dated 2.4.1994, after a period of almost five years from the date of certification of the mutation entry. It was submitted that it is settled legal position that powers of suo motu revision have to be exercised within a reasonable time and a period of more than four years, can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a reasonable time. It was submitted that the impugned orders passed by the revisional authority as well as the Collector are required to be set aside on this ground alone.