CHANDUBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil reference has come up before this Bench on a reference made by the learned Single Judge as per the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 (in short as 'the High Court Rules'), with the reasons in the referral order that an authoritative pronouncement to provide a guidance to the subordinate authorities as to what would be a reasonable time in a given case for exercise of suo motu power, is needed.

(2.) A perusal of the referral order indicates that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to note the facts culled out from the record and then noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suo motu power could not have been exercised after a period of 27 years from the date of the alleged dispossession of the tenant, i.e. father of the respondent no.3. It was also noted that there are judgements of the Apex Court wherein it has been observed that where no period of limitation is provided in exercising suo motu power, the authority would be obliged to exercise the power within a reasonable period.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein was that if the delay of 27 years in exercise of suo motu power is not taken to be unreasonable time, somebody may come after 100 years and say that he be conferred rights under Sec. 32 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the possession be restored to him. In light of these arguments, it was opined by the learned Single Judge that the judgment of a Single bench of this Court in the matter of Bhaikha Umravkha Pathan vs. Ismail Gafurbhai Vora [1989(1) GLR 392] deserves to be reconsidered in light of the decision of the Apex Court that the suo motu power of review or revision or reopening the proceedings should be exercised within a reasonable time.