FARUQ DAVOOD BHULA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges order dated 25.9.2008/30.9.2008 made by respondent No.1 Authority in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/ST/41/2003 which confirmed order dated 20.12.2002 made by Collector, Surat in RTS Revision Case Mangrol/36/Dhamdod/004 in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances.

(2.) IT is the say of the petitioner that father of the petitioner one Davood Mohamad Bhula acquired right, title and interest in agricultural land bearing survey No. 283 paiki 52, 125, 277 paiki and 278 situated at village Dhamdod, Taluka Mangrol, District Surat under oral gift made in favour of the petitioner under Mohammedan Law and the donor was Respondent No. 3 Isup Ismail Darsot. Pursuant to the said oral gift Entry No. 1004 came to be mutated on 11.5.1973 in the revenue record and the said Entry was certified on 11.6.1973 by Circle Officer, Kosamba. In 1996 Collector, Surat initiated suo -motu revisional procedings by issuing Show Cause Notice. After hearing the petitioner, the Collector has directed cancellation of the said Entry No. 1004 dated 11.5.1973. The petitioner carried the matter in revision. Respondent No.3 herein sought impleadment in the said proceedings and vide order dated 5.10.2007 permission was granted to Respondent No. 3 herein to be a party in the revisional proceedings. After hearing the parties the Revisional Authority has upheld the order made by the Collector for the reasons recorded in order dated 25.9.2008.

(3.) AT first blush the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner appear to be attractive. It is true that the Courts have consistently held that revisional powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can be exercised only within a reasonable period, normally such period being considered as of one year. However, at the same time, the Courts have consistently held that where the transaction is vitiated by fraud no limitation would stand in way of an Authority when the fraud comes to light. In the facts of the present case, if the order of the Collector is examined, it has categorically been recorded that the record reveals that the statement pursuant to notice under Section 135D of the Code which had been recorded was of one Yakub Yusuf Mulla, who was Power of Attorney Holder of Ibrahim Ismail Darsot and the said person, namely, Ibrahim Ismail Darsot had granted Power of Attorney both to Yakub Yusuf Mulla and Davood Mohamad Bhula, namely, father of the petitioner. Thus the record reveals that one Power of Attorney Holder has orally agreed to transfer the land in question to another Power of Attorney Holder. Thus in effect, both the Power of Attorney Holders, who derive their source of power from the owner of the land, have entered into a transaction so as to deprive the owner of the land. The transaction would in net result reflect the owner as having transferred property to himself which in law cannot be termed to be a valid transfer.