ABDUL REHMAN JUSAF PINJARA Vs. DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate Writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Nakhatrana dated 27.07.1989 in Revision Application No.25 of 1989 quashing and setting aside the entry in the revenue record, confirmed by the Collector, Kutch vide judgment and order dated 30.01.1991 passed in R.R.T.Revision Application No.41 of 1990, further confirmed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State vide judgment and order dated 21.12.1992 passed in S.R.D.Application No.9 of 1991.

(2.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner in the petition that the petitioner has purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No.88 and Survey No.87/1 admeasuring 12 Acres 25 Gunthas and 10 Acres and 27 Guntha situated in Village Charkhada Taluka Nakhtarana in an auction held by the learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Nakhtarana, in the year 1978 -79. Necessary entry was made in the revenue record in the year 1978 -79 itself. After a period of eleven years of mutation entry in the revenue record, suo -moto revision was taken by the Deputy Collector, Nakhtarana in the year 1989 and in exercise of powers under Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, Deputy Collector, Nakhtarana vide judgment and order dated 27.07.1989 passed an order to set aside mutation entry by which name of the petitioner was entered into, by holding that the petitioner was not agriculturalist when he purchased land in Court auction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Nakhatarana dated 27.07.1989 passed in Revision Application No.25 of 1989, the petitioner preferred Revision Application being R.R.T.No.41 of 1990 before the Collector, Kutch who vide judgment and order dated 31.01.1991 dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order dated 27.07.1989 passed by the Deputy Collector, Nakhatarana. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Collector, Kutch, the petitioner preferred further Revision Application before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat being S.R.D. No.9 of 1991 and the said Revision Application came to be dismissed by Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by judgment and order dated 21.12.1992. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid three orders, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR .Farooqui, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the entry was made in the revenue record in the year 1980 on the basis of purchase of land in question by the petitioner in Court auction held by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Nakhatarana and Deputy Collector, Nakhatarana exercised suo -moto revisional powers after a period of nine years i.e. after unreasonable delay which the Deputy Collector could not have exercised. He has submitted that the controversy involved is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v/s. Patel Raghavanath reported in 1969 GLR 992 as well as decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.3589 of 1992 and other cognate matters and Special Civil Application No.4000 of 1992, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.