PALANPUR MAHAJAN PANJARAPOLE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner is a Trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 under No. B-6-Banaskantha District. It holds various parcels of land admeasuring in all 622 acres 5 gunthas situated in village Merwada in District Banaskantha. It was granted exemption for the operation of the Act under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act and the necessary exemption certificate was issued on 4th May 1968. On amendment of the relevant provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act by Gujarat Act No. II of 1974 with effect from 1st April 1976, the petitioner was required to make a fresh application for exemption under Section 3 thereof. Apropos it made such application to the Dy. Collector on 28th June 1976. The necessary inquiry was held. At the inquiry the documentary evidence was produced. After perusing the material on record, by his Order passed on 4th September 1982, the Dy. Collector accepted that application and granted exemption to the petitioner from the operation of the Act with respect to the lands held by it. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the Order at Annexure-A to this petition came to the notice of the State Government and it appears to have found it illegal. It thereupon issued one show-cause notice on 6th September-1993 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why the Order at Annexure-A to this petition should not be cancelled. A copy of the show-cause notice is at Annexure-B to this petition. The petitioner appears to have filed its reply on 7th November 1983 to the show-cause notice and contended that the Order at Annexure-A to this petition was quite legal and valid. A copy of the petitioner's reply is at Annexure-C to this petition. It appears that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing pursuant to the show-cause notice. After hearing the petitioner through its representative, by its Order passed by the Dy. Collector at Annexure-A to this petition and remanded the matter back to the Dy. Collector for deciding the fate of the petitioner's application for exemption under Section 3 of the Act afresh according to law in the light of the directions contained in the Order passed by the State Government on 28th March 1984. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. That aggrieved the petitioner. It has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through its Trustees for questioning the legality and validity of the Order at Annexure-D to this petition.

(2.) Shri Zaveri for the petitioner has urged that the impugned Order at Annexure-D to this petition appears to have been passed in exercise of its powers under Section 52 of the Act. Shri Zaveri has however submitted that Section 52 of the Act does not confer any revisional powers on the State Government. In the alternative, runs the submission of Shri Zaveri for the petitioner, assuming for the sake of argument that Section 52 confers revisional powers on the State Government, such powers have to be exercised within reasonable time and not beyond a period of one year from the date of the order in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha reported in (1969) 10 Gujarat Law Reporter at page 992 and the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (1971) 12 Gujarat Law Reporter at page 156. As against this, Shri Patel for the respondents has submitted that Section 52 read in the light of Section 3(1-D) of the Act does confer revisional powers on the State Government and, since no time limit is prescribed for exercise of such power's, the impugned Order at Annexure-D to this petition cannot be challenged on the ground that the revisional powers have been exercised beyond a period of one year. Besides, runs the submission of Shri Patel for the respondents, the Order at Annexure-A to this petition was passed on 4th September 1982 and the show-cause notice at Annexure B for its proposed cancellation was issued on 6th September 1983, that is, only two days beyond the period of one year. According to Shri Patel for the respondents, the delay of two days in exercise of the revisional powers need not be overemphasised for upsetting the Order at Annexure-D to this petition.

(3.) In its aforesaid ruling in the case of Patel Raghav Natha (supra), the Supreme Court was required to examine the scope of revisional powers conferred on the authority named under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 ("the Code" for brief). It has been held therein that such revisional powers have to be exercised within reasonable time and what would be the reasonable time would depend upon the facts of the case and the nature of the impugned order. In that case it has been held that such revisional powers ought to have been exercised within three months from the date of the impugned order. By analogy the aforesaid binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Raghav Natha (supra) will be applicable in the present case.