SULEMAN ISMAIL TANKOLIYA Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 24 th April, 2013 made by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the revisional authority") whereby the revision application filed by the respondents No.6 to 14 has been allowed and the order dated 30th October, 2012 made by the Collector, Navsari has been set aside and Mutation Entry No.355 dated 29 th May, 1970 has been restored.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that lands bearing Block No.50 and 125 of mauje Chokhad, taluka Jalalpur, district Navsari were running in the name of Ahmed Ibrahim Tankoliya. Ahmed Ibrahim Tankoliya expired on 16 th February, 1968 after which Mutation Entry No.355 came to be made on 29th May, 1970 whereby the name of his nephew Ibrahim Ismail Tankoliya came to be entered in the revenue record. Thereafter, after a period of about forty years from the date of the said mutation entry, the petitioners herein challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Navsari. By an order dated 5 th July, 2010, the Deputy Collector condoned the delay caused in filing the appeal. Thereafter, by an order dated 8 th April, 2011, the Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal on merits. Being aggrieved, the petitioners went in revision before the Collector, Navsari who by an order dated 30 th October, 2012 allowed the revision and set aside Mutation Entry No.355 and directed that the names of the petitioners be entered in the record of rights as they were the lineal descendants of the original land owner. Respondents No.6 to 14 (hereinafter referred to as "the contesting respondents") challenged the order of the Collector before the revisional authority under rule 108(6-A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"). By the impugned order, the revision came to be allowed, which has given rise to the present petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocate appearing on caveat on behalf of the contesting respondents, opposed the petition by submitting that the mutation entry in question was made in the year 1970 whereas the same was sought to be challenged in the year 2010, after a delay of forty years. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors., 2009 AIR SCW 6305, for the proposition that even when there is no time limit for exercise of powers of revision by the revisional authority, such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the facts of the said case, the court held that the revisional jurisdiction should have been exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport of the Maharashtra Act. The court held that the delay of seventeen years in exercise of revisional powers was not a reasonable time. It was accordingly submitted that the revisional authority was justified in holding that the proceedings were barred by limitation.