STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARKANT VASANTLAL SUTHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Gujarat has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.11.1999, passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.5 of 1996, whereby, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated 31.05.1995 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar, confirming the order dated 30.07.1993, passed by the Assistant Collector, Jamnagar, where under, the Assistant Collector has exercised suo-moto powers of revision and passed the order for removal of respondent from the occupation of land bearing survey No.167, admeasuring 2 Acre 34 Guntha, situated at Village-Sumra, Taluka: Dhrol under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy, Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (for short "the Ordinance"), on the ground that the sale transaction, in favour of the respondents, was in breach of the provision of Section 54 of the Ordinance.

(2.) LEARNED AGP Ms.Pathak submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error in setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below on the ground that the suo-moto powers could not have been exercised after delay of about five years. She submitted that since the original transaction was void and invalid, the delay in exercise of suo-moto revisional power would not come in the way of the authorities, especially, when there is no dispute about the fact that the respondents were non-agriculturist. She further submitted that the transaction took place on 11.06.1987, entry was made in the revenue record on 12.08.1988 and the suo-moto powers came to be exercised in the year 1993. When it came to the knowledge of the authority that the said transaction was in contravention of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Assistant Collector, Jamnagar was justified in taking action under Section 75 of the Ordinance. She further submitted that if the competent authority, in such case, does not take any action, after having knowledge of such invalid transaction, then it would frustrate the main purpose of the Ordinance of imposing restriction on the transaction in favour of a non-agriculturist. She submitted that though there was delay in initiating proceedings under the Ordinance, the Assistant Collector was well within the powers to take action under Section 75 of the Ordinance since the sale transaction was void and invalid from its inception and therefore, no illegality is committed by the authority in removing the respondents from the land.