FARIDABANU ABDULGAFAR KAPADIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, by this petition, has prayed for appropriate relief to quash and set aside the order dated 1.4.1999 passed by the State Government in suo motu revision, whereby the State Government has set aside the order of the Taluka Panchayat for grant of permission for non-agricultural purpose.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the land bearing Block No.544 admeasuring 10 acres and 07 gunthas located at Village Veluk, Taluka Olpad was to be converted for non-agricultural use. The application was made and thereafter on 25.1.1991 land was converted for non-agricultural use. As per the petitioners, they had purchased the land and based on the document, revenue entry was also mutated on 18.2.1992. Thereafter, in the year 1998, vide notice dated 7.4.1998, the matter was taken in suo motu revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and notice was issued. As per the petitioners, the notice was not served upon them, whereas as per the respondents, notice was served upon some of the petitioners, but they did not remain present. Thereafter, the State Government in revisional jurisdiction, vide order dated 1.4.1999, has set aside the order of Taluka Development Officer for grant of N.A. Permission. It is under these circumstances, the present petition.

(3.) IT is undisputed position that permission for N.A., use came to be granted in the year 1991 and the petitioners after having purchased the land revenue entries were mutated and certified on 18.2.1992. Thereafter, the action is initiated for the first time on 7.4.1998. Therefore, about six years delay was operating for initiation of the action. On the aspect of delay as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera v. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Deptt., Gujarat State & Ors., reported in 2011(1) GLR, 279, this Court has held that if there is delay of three years in initiation of action, the action could be said as barred by delay. The reference may also be made to another decision of this Court in the case of Vitthalbhai M. Patel & Ors. v. Deputy Collector, Kaira & Anr., reported in 2011(1) GLR 610. In my view, the position of law is well settled. Therefore, the action cannot be sustained if the above referred legal position is taken into consideration.