UMEDSINH DHIRUBHA GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and also under the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance Act of 1949") as well as under the Bombay Land Revenue Code for the prayer as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed in Revision Application No. 10/2013 by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad dated 15.2.2015 (at Annexure-L) confirming the order passed in R.O./Gharkhed Case No.21/2012-13 by the Collector, Bhyavnagar dated 20.7.2013 (at Annexure-I) on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) It is contended that the order passed in Revision Application by the authority is illegal, improper and not sustainable. Therefore the suo motu exercise of powers and / or the order passed by the Respondent Authority or the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department beyond a reasonable time is bad in law. It has been further emphasized that such exercise of suo motu powers has to be within a reasonable period of time as settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 and thereafter in catena of judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788.

(3.) The facts of the case briefly summarized are that the petitioner is a family member engaged in the agriculturist activities and the name of the petitioner is shown in the revenue record. The father of the petitioner was having the land at village Vavdi for which entry no. 303 has been made dated 20.12.1962 and the further details re stated as narrated in the petition. The petitioner along with one Tribhovanbhai Kareliya and Mrs. Champaben Kareliya purchased the land from Respondent No.7 - Kalyanbhai Ukabhai by a registered sale deed dated 18.1.1991 for which entry no. 805 has been mutated and certified on 15.2.1994. As one of the joint purchaser - Champaben expired, the heirs of the deceased Champaben were brought on record for which entry no.912 was mutated. However, Respondent No.3 - District Collector, Bhavnagar issued show cause notice dated 5.9.2012 for breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance Act rasing the issue about the transaction qua the purchase of land by the petitioner and others from Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 on the ground that the sale transaction was not between the agriculturist and agriculturist and therefore it was in breach of Section 54 which led to R.O./Gharkhed Case No.21/2012-13 which culminated into the aforesaid Revision Application No. 10/2013.