BHUPENDRABHAI GOVINDBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the petition are that the petitioner is the owner and occupant of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.32 admeasuring 17907 sq. mtrs. situated in Village Nanavada in Paddhari Taluka of Rajkot District. Taluka Development Officer by his order dated 23.09.1996 granted the non-agricultural permission to the petitioner for the said land. Pursuant to that Mutation Entry No.891 was also made in the revenue record which was certified by the Mamlatdar. Thereafter, the State Government issued show-cause-notice dated 24.11.1998 to the petitioner to show cause why the order of the Taluka Development Officer granting N.A. Permission should not be cancelled. The petitioner replied the said show-cause-notice by reply dated 24.03.1999. The State Government by its order dated 28.05.1999 cancelled non-agricultural permission. Hence, the petition.

(3.) Mr.Bharat Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the order passed by the Taluka Development Officer under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short) is dated 23.09.1996, while the Government is purporting to cancel the said order by exercising its revisional power under Section 211 of the Code. He has further submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha, 1969 GLR 992, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even though no period of limitation is prescribed under Section 211 of the Code, the said power is required to be exercised within a reasonable period and in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the order cannot be revised. It goes without saying that it is required to be revised within reasonable time from the date of passing of the order. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed in number of cases by this High Court. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, it is submitted that in the present case, the order of the Taluka Development Officer granting N.A. Permission dated 23.09.1996 and for the first time, the State Government has purported to revise the said order by issuing the show-cause- notice dated 24.11.1998. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 65 of the Code and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the this Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the said power is sought to be exercised after a period of more than two years and two years is wholly unjustified and on this ground alone, the impugned order of the State Government at Annexure-F is required to be quashed and set aside. Further, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision/judgment in the case of Bharatkumar C. Jinwala Vs. State of Gujarat, 2015 1 GLR 576. While taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the said judgment/decision, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is submitted that the period of two years cannot be said to be unreasonable and the justification given by the concerned authority is so germane that this Court need not to interfere only on the ground of exercise of powers after two years.