MUKTABEN JAYSUKHLAL PATIRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 29 th November, 1996 made by the Collector, Rajkot as well as the order dated 4th May, 2000 made by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal whereby the aforesaid order passed by the Collector has been confirmed.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioners purchased land bearing Survey No.240 admeasuring acres 4-38 gunthas of village Kotda-Sangani (Veraval), district Rajkot on 5th January, 1989. Similarly, land bearing Survey No.241 admeasuring acres 3-23 gunthas of the said village was also purchased on 20th July, 1990. Pursuant thereto, corresponding entry namely, Mutation Entry 1299 came to be made in the revenue record on 15 th December, 1990 which came to be certified on 21 st January, 1991. Another mutation entry being No.1154 came to be made on 3 rd March, 1990 and came to be certified on 25 th April, 1990. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application for converting the land bearing survey No.240 into non-agricultural land. By an order dated 27th July, 1989 of the Taluka Development Officer, N.A. permission came to be granted subject to certain conditions. The petitioners thereafter applied for permission to construct a factory from the Veraval Gram Panchayat which was granted on 8th June, 1990. After applying for obtaining electricity supply, the petitioners put up a manufacturing unit on the said land after incurring considerable cost for the construction of the factory premises. Thereafter, production of food items was undertaken.

(3.) MR . A.J. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently assailed the impugned order by submitting that before the Collector, the petitioners had given a detailed reply to the show-cause notice pointing out several facts including the fact that they were agriculturists at Koyli, Jamnagar at the time when the subject lands were purchased and adduced proof in support thereof which is on the record of the case. It was further pointed out that the transactions in question are of the year 1989 and 1990 whereas the proceedings came to be initiated in the year 1993, after a delay of more than three years. It was submitted that it is settled legal position that suo motu revision under rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, as well as the proceedings under section 54 of the Gharkhed Ordinance cannot be initiated beyond a reasonable period. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings beyond a period of three years was wholly without jurisdiction. It was submitted that despite the fact that the petitioners had placed reliance upon various decisions of this High Court as well as the Supreme court in support of such contention, the same were not considered by the Collector and the impugned order of summary eviction of the petitioners came to be passed. It was submitted that before the Tribunal also, the petitioners had pointed out that they were holding lands at Koyli and were, therefore, agriculturists. However, the Tribunal had failed to consider the same. It was submitted that at the relevant time, when the subject lands were purchased by the petitioners, they were agriculturists and even otherwise, there was no breach of the provisions of section 54 of the Gharkhed Ordinance, under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by the Collector are required to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera vs. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Deptt., Gujarat State & Ors., 2011 (1) GLR 279. It was urged, that the question of limitation was also not taken into consideration by the Tribunal, despite the fact that an irreversible situation had been created as the respondents had not taken action within a reasonable period.