PATEL KEVALBHAI MANJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred the present petition for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 31.3.2003 and its confirmation thereof by the order of the State Government in revisional jurisdiction, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-A, whereby the transaction for purchase of the land by the petitioners is held to be in contravention to the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners purchased the land situated at Village Dahegamda vide registered sale deed dated 17.12.1979. Based on the said registered sale deed, the revenue entry was mutated vide Mutation Entry No.976 dated 10.3.1989 and the said entry was certified on 7.6.1989. Thereafter, the proceedings under the Act came to be initiated for the first time by Notice dated 6.3.2003 by the Deputy Collector for declaration of the sale as illegal on the ground that the same was in breach of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners replied to the said show-cause notice, but the explanation was not accepted and the order dated 31.3.2003 came to be passed by the Deputy Collector, whereby the sale was declared as illegal, in breach of the provisions of the Act and it was directed for restoration of the possession and the fine of Rs.250/- was also imposed. The petitioners carried the matter in revision before the State Government and before the State Government the contention of delay was raised. However, the State Government did not consider the said aspect properly, in spite of the same was brought to its notice and ultimately, dismissed the revision. Under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(3.) IT is undisputed position that the petitioners purchased the property in the year 1979. The revenue entry was mutated in the year 1989 and the action is initiated under the Act for the first time on 6.3.2003. Even if it is considered from the date of the revenue entry, then also, the period of about more than 12 years had passed at the time when the action was initiated and, therefore, it can be said that the action was barred by delay and the same was, in any case, beyond reasonable period.