STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMARATBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions arise out of common order dated 7th October, 2005 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department whereby the order dated 29 th December, 2004 made by the Collector, Surat has been quashed and set aside and Mutation Entries No.3506 and 3951 have been restored, and as such they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that lands bearing Block No.139 admeasuring Hectares 1.35.57 square metres of mauje Takarma, taluka Olpad (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land") were jointly owned by Bharatbhai Bhulabhai Desai and Pragnaben Bharatbhai Desai. The said lands came to be sold to Amratbhai Naranbhai (respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application No.10522/2011 and hereinafter referred to as "the first respondent") by a registered sale deed, pursuant to which Mutation Entry No.3506 came to be posted on 2nd September, 1988. Thereafter, Amratbhai Naranbhai sold the subject land to Mahendrabhai Naginbhai Patel (the respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application No.10846/2011 and hereinafter referred to as "the second respondent") vide registered sale deed pursuant to which Mutation Entry No.3951 came to be posted on 19 th April, 1993. It appears that prior to purchasing the above land Amratbhai Naranbhai was holding land bearing Block No.218 of mauje Sarsana in respect of which mutation entry No.1052 was made on 13th July, 1988. Since the first respondent was not an agriculturist when he acquired the land at Sarsana by virtue of a will, the Collector, Surat took mutation entry No.1052 in revision and by an order dated 28 th June, 2001, set aside Mutation Entry No.1052 dated 10th July, 1988. The first respondent challenged the order of the Collector in revision before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). By an order dated 14th March, 2004 the revision came to be rejected. The first respondent challenged the order of the revisional authority before this court by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11408 of 2004. By an order dated 10th September, 2004, this court directed the parties to maintain status quo. In the meanwhile, when the facts regarding mutation entry No.1052 being cancelled came to the notice of the Talati-cum-Mantri, Takarma, he made a report dated 1st December, 2003 stating that Amratbhai Naranbhai was not an agriculturist and opined that Mutation Entry No.3506 is required to be cancelled. The Collector, Surat, therefore, took the said mutation entry in revision which came to be registered as RTS/Revision Case No.209 of 2003. By an order dated 29th December, 2004 the Collector set aside mutation entry No.3506 dated 2 nd September, 1988 on the ground of being violative of the provisions of sections 2(6) and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"). The Collector also directed the Mamlatdar to initiate proceedings under section 84C of the Tenancy Act in respect of the said lands. Being aggrieved, both the respondents went in revision before the Secretary, Revenue Department. By a common order dated 7th October, 2005, both the revision applications came to be allowed whereby the revisional authority set aside the order of the Collector and restored the mutation entry.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Shaivang Mehta, learned advocate for the respondents in both the petitions supported the impugned order and submitted that the present petitions are required to be dismissed on two counts, firstly on the count of delay, because the impugned order is dated 7 th October, 2005 whereas the petitions have been filed in May, 2011, after a delay of more than five years. Secondly, even otherwise, there is no merit in the petitions, inasmuch as the Collector could not have taken the mutation entries in suo motu revision beyond a reasonable time. In the present case, the mutation entry of 1988 was sought to be taken in revision in the year 2004, that is, after a period of sixteen years and as such, the very initiation of proceedings under rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules was without jurisdiction. It was accordingly urged that the petitions being devoid of merit deserve to be dismissed.