MUMAN ISMILE IBRAHIM SELIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The factual matrix in the present case is as follows :-

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Siraj Gori appearing for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioner had applied for non- agriculture permission to the learned Collector and the learned Collector, while scrutinizing the mutation entry in respect of the subject land, came to the conclusion that the petitioner's predecessor-in-title whose name was entered vide mutation entry No.1010 dtd. 25/9/1976 was not an agriculturist in absence of production of any valid document. He submits that after rejecting the application for non-agriculture permission as preferred by the petitioner, the learned Collector has suo motu issued notice under Sec. 211 of the Land Revenue Code exercising revisional powers as to why the said entry of Shri Bachubhai Jethabhai should not be cancelled and set aside. Learned advocate submits that such suo motu revisional powers has been exercised in the present case after a period of 40 years. He submits that the petitioner accordingly filed the reply before the learned Collector, however the learned Collector, doubting the status of Shri Bachubhai Jethabhai as an agriculturist, has proceeded to set aside his revenue entry and all subsequent entries including the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has now been called upon to pay the penalty to regularize such possession of Bachubhai Jethabhai in the year 1976. He submits that the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department has also erred for upholding the order passed by the learned Collector. He submits that both the orders are bad in law and both the authorities have not taken into consideration the law laid down by this Court in respect of exercising revisional powers within a reasonable period of time. He submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has come into the possession of certain record in respect of said Bachubhai Jethabhai, which shows that said Bachubhai Jethabhai was an agriculturist on the relevant date when he was holding the subject land as an agriculturist. He, therefore, submits that in view of the documents which have been subsequently acquired by the petitioner, the finding given by both the authorities that said Bachubhai Jethabhai was not an agriculturist, is also falsified and the said documents are produced on record by way of additional affidavit in the present proceedings.