RAVJIBHAI MOHANBHAI TALAVIA Vs. CHHAGANBHAI DEVJIBHAI MANDANAKDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act') also the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and Transfer of Property Act, for the prayers, inter alia, that the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar in Tenancy Case No.2/1988 dated 16.05.1988 at AnnexureA, also the order passed by the Mamlatdar in Tenancy Case No.92 of 1993 dated 30.09.1996 at AnnexureB may be quashed and set aside, as well as the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in TEN.B.R.11/97 dated 21.10.1999 may be quashed and set aside restoring the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Rajula in Tenancy Appeal Case No.3 of 1997 dated 26.05.1997, on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) HEARD learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Shah for the petitioners and learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for the Respondent No.4.

(3.) 11.1977, whereas this transaction has already taken place in 1971 and therefore the sale cannot be questioned on any such ground. He submitted that the amendment in the provisions of Section 43 of the Act cannot be made effective retrospectively and therefore the entire exercise of the revisional powers for breach of condition and proceedings under Section 84C are without jurisdiction. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition may be allowed. He has also stated that in any case the exercise of powers is beyond reasonable period as such powers could not be exercised after long lapse of about 12 years. In support of his submissions he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6305 in the case of Shantoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. V. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors, and emphasized the observations that exercise of revisional powers after 17 years was held to be void. Similarly, he emphasized that such powers could not be exercised after such a long lapse of period. He emphasized the observations made in para 14 which read,