SULTANBHAI SHARIFBHAI DADVANI 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 provisions of 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. 2/2009 by the Respondent No.1 - Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad dated 14.6.2012 (13.6.2012) (at Annexure-C) confirming the order passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No. 65/99-2000 dated 4.9.2001 (at Annexure-B) as well as the order passed in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No. 36/97-98 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhrangdhara dated 29.3.2000, (at Annexure-A) 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.) In the facts of the case, the powers are exercised under the Ordinance Act of 1949 and Bombay Land Revenue Code. It has been contended that reasonable time or reasonable period has to be considered in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court or the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court including the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Joseph Severance v/s Benny Mathew reported in (2005) 7 SCC 667 where it has been observed: