DHANSUKHBHAI LALLUBHAI BHAVSAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS similar issues of fact and law are involved in the petitions that are directed against the order dated 21.06.2002 (26.06.2002) passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, and orders dated 27.12.2011 (in Special Civil Application No.2917/2012) and 05.01.2012 (in Special Civil Application No.2918/2012) passed by the Deputy Collector, as a consequence of the order of the Principal Secretary (Appeals), they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No.2917 of 2012 shall be noticed. It is the case of the petitioners that they had purchased land admeasuring 10816 square metres comprised in Block No.686 of village Anaval, Taluka: Mahuva, District: Surat, from respondent No.4, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, on 27.06.1979 (wrongly mentioned as 27.06.1989 in the petition). AS per the case of the petitioners, possession of the land was taken by them pursuant to the said transaction. In the year 1994, a notice was issued to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for short). The Deputy Collector, Vyara, held that there was no breach of Section 73AA by the petitioners, hence, the show cause notice was withdrawn by order dated 30.06.1994. Thereafter, respondent No.2 Principal Secretary (Appeals), initiated suo-motu proceedings against the petitioners and, by impugned order dated 21.06.2002 (26.06.2002), set aside the order of the Deputy Collector dated 30.06.1994, by remanding the matter to the Deputy Collector for initiation of proceedings under Section 73AA of the Code. The Deputy Collector initiated proceedings under Section 73AA of the Code, that have culminated in passing of the impugned orders dated 27.12.2011 and 05.01.2012 by the Deputy Collector, wherein findings have been recorded that, since prior permission of the Collector was not obtained for selling the land to a non-tribal person by a tribal person, there was a violation of Section 73AA(4) of the Code, hence, the land be vested in the State Government. The impugned orders of the Deputy Collector also state that separate proceedings would be initiated for imposition of fine under Section 73AA(7) of the Code. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Principal Secretary (Appeals) and Deputy Collector, as mentioned hereinabove, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petitions.

(2.) MR.M.A.Bukhari, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned orders of the Principal Secretary (Appeals) and the Deputy Collector are misconceived, as the said authorities have misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the Code. That, after passing of the order dated 30.06.1994, by the Deputy Collector, closing the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice, there was no justification for initiation of suo-motu proceedings in the year 2001. In any case, suo-motu proceedings have been initiated after a delay of almost seven years, which is an unreasonable period, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel v. State of Gujarat And Anr. reported in 1971 GLR 156. It is submitted that the power under Section 211 of the Code must be exercised within a reasonable period of time, even though no period of limitation has been prescribed in the said provision of law. In that case, the Court had found a period of seven years to be an unreasonable period. It is contended that in the present case as well, there is a delay of about seven years in initiating suo-motu proceedings by respondent No.2, therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 on 21.06.2002 (26.06.2002) deserve to be quashed and set aside, as also the consequential orders of the Deputy Collector. It is further submitted that the sale transaction took place on 27.06.1979, i.e. before Section 73AA of the Code came into effect with effect from 01.02.1981, therefore, the notice was rightly withdrawn by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 30.06.1994. This being the position, there is no justification for reopening the closed proceedings by respondent No.2 after an unreasonably long period of time. It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned orders of the Deputy Collector have been passed against dead persons, as Ramabhai Vitthalbhai Dhangar, one of the original land owners, expired on 27.02.2000 and Rameshbhai Ichharam Tailor (Bhavsar), who was one of the purchasers of the land, expired on 26.09.2010. Therefore, on this ground as well, the orders of the Deputy Collector deserve to be quashed and set aside, having been passed against dead persons, without bringing their heirs on the record of the case. On the strength of the above submissions, it is prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside, and the petition allowed.

(3.) FROM the material on record, it emerges that land admeasuring 12277 square metres of Block No.686, situated at Village: Anaval, Taluka: Mahuva, District: Surat, was running in the name of Ramabhai Vitthalbhai Dhangar, who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. Out of this, land admeasuring 10816 square metres was purchased by the petitioners. In respect of land admeasuring 10816 square metres of the above mentioned land, the petitioners executed an agreement to sell on stamp paper worth Rs.10/- on 27.06.1979 (wrongly mentioned as 27.06.1989 in the petition), pursuant to which, possession was taken over by them. Suo-motu proceedings, initiated by the Deputy Collector under Section 73AA in the year 1994, were withdrawn by order dated 30.06.1994, of the Deputy Collector, on the ground that the provisions of Section 73AA of the Code were not in force on 27.06.1979, when the agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, suo-motu proceedings appear to have been initiated by respondent No.2 in the year 2001, that culminated in the impugned order dated 26.06.2002, remanding the matter to the Deputy Collector for initiation of proceedings under Section 73AA of the Code. As a consequence of this order, the Deputy Collector has initiated proceedings and has passed the impugned orders dated 27.12.2011 (in Special Civil Application No.2917/2012) and 05.01.2012 (in Special Civil Application No.2918/2012), directing forfeiture of the land to the State Government.