GULAM HUSEIN JIVABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the original plaintiff who filed a suit to set aside an order of the Prant Officer Dholka holding that the suit land belonged to the Government. It is admitted that the suit was filed one year after the order and the date of the appeal. But it is contended that a revision application was filed and that the suit was filed within one year from the date of the decision of the revision application. Section 37(3) of the Land Revenue Code reads as under:-

(2.) But relying on Malrajeppa v. Secretary of State for India I. L. R. 36 Bombay 325 the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order in question was an ultra vires order. It is difficult to understand the reasoning in I. L. R. 36 Bom. 325. Merely because a person is in peaceful possession for some time it cannot be said that the Collector cannot make an inquiry under sec. 37 of the Land Revenue Code if the property is claimed by the Government. If any property is claimed by the Government or by any private person then it is the duty of the Collector to make an inquiry under sec. 37 of the said Code and simply because at the time when the claim was made by the Government certain person was alleged to be in peaceful possession of the property does not affect the duty of the Collector to make an inquiry under sec. 37 of the Code and it cannot be said that the inquiry made by the Collector under sec. 37 of the Land Revenue Code is ultra vires and that it is not a proper exercise of his powers. The questions as to who was in possession and the nature and duration of such possession will only be clear from the inquiry. It is the duty of the Collector to make an inquiry once a claim is made by the Government or by any private person. The inquiry made by the Collector under the statute cannot therefore be said to be ultra vires the statute. With great respect it is difficult to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judges in I.L.R. 36 Bombay 325 In the instant case the learned appellate Judge has observed in his judgment as follows:-

(3.) No other contention is urged. The second appeal is therefore dismissed. No orders as to costs.