Gujarat High Court
Shantaben Shashikant Dave Decd vs State Of Gujarat on 5 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21397 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHANTABEN SHASHIKANT DAVE DECD & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR. RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR. JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 05/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
''a. Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition.
b. Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order holding that the show cause notice dated 20/09/2023 issued by the Collector, Bhuj is illegal and without jurisdiction and the same be quashed and set aside.
c. Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the action arising from the show cause notice dated 20/09/2023 issued by the Collector, Bhuj pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition.Page 1 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined d. Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.''
2) The case of the petitioners can be summarised in a nutshell:
2.1) The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave, who was declared to be an agricultural tenant in respect of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 183 situated at Village Vadsar, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch.
The said land was originally owned by Bhukhera Sidhik Mumu. It is the case of the petitioners that the said land had been cultivated by the deceased Shashikantbhai for more than 15 years as an agricultural tenant. Thereafter, in the year 2001, upon the demise of the original owner of the property, his widow executed a registered sale deed in favour of Shashikantbhai. Pursuant to the execution of the said sale deed, a mutation entry was made in the revenue record, which was subsequently certified by the competent revenue authority. It is further submitted that the widow of the original owner, Bhukhera Sidhik Mumu, had also executed an affidavit dated 28.07.2001, wherein she categorically stated that the land in question had been cultivated by Shashikantbhai as a tenant for several years. At the relevant point of time, proceedings were initiated before the Mamlatdar, and upon due consideration, the Mamlatdar passed an order dated 04.09.2001, declaring Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave as an agricultural tenant in respect of the said land. The said order was passed after considering the provisions of the Gujarat Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience and brevity, as "the Act"). Pursuant to the execution of the registered sale deed, Shashikant Dolatram Dave became the absolute owner and occupant of the land from October 2001 onwards.
2.2) Thereafter, in the year 2007, upon the demise of Shashikantbhai, the names of his legal heirs, i.e., the present petitioners, were entered in the revenue record, and the said mutation entry was also duly certified by the competent revenue authority. During the interregnum period, the family members of the petitioners had also purchased different parcels of agricultural land in the Kutch region. Subsequently, an application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 was preferred for conversion of the said land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. At that stage, an inquiry was initiated by the District Magistrate (Collector), and the said application came to be disposed of by observing that prima facie certain discrepancies were noticed in the revenue record, and therefore, with a view to verify the records and initiate proceedings under Section 122 of the Tenancy Act, the application was required to be examined further.
2.3) Thereafter, on 28.09.2023, the petitioners received a show cause notice issued from the office of the Collector, Kutch, essentially under the provisions of Section 110 of the Act, with regard to the mutation entry made in the revenue record in respect of Survey No. 183. By the said notice, the petitioners Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined were called upon to clarify whether the Mamlatdar, Abdasa, by order dated 04.09.2001, had in fact declared Shashikant Dolatram Dave as a cultivator and agricultural tenant of the land bearing Survey No. 183 of Village Vadsar, who had been cultivating the said land for more than 15 years, and whether his name was required to be reflected as an agriculturist in the 7/12 extracts. The notice further required clarification as to whether, pursuant to the said order of the Mamlatdar, the name of Shashikant Dolatram Dave had been duly mutated in the revenue record, whether his name had been entered in the Hakku Patra as a tenant, whether the said proceedings had been registered in the tenancy register, and whether the land had been categorized as agricultural land under Serial No. 3 in the revenue record. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the grounds and allegations stated in the said show cause notice, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
3) Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati assisted by learned advocate Mr. Kirtidev Dave appearing for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for Respondent - State.
4) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Kirtidev Dave, appearing for the applicants, submits that the grounds stated in the show cause notice issued by the Collector are absolutely unjust, illegal, and contrary to the documents available on record, and therefore, the said notice deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined petition. It is submitted that on 04.09.2001, the Mamlatdar, Naliya (Taluka Abdasa), after considering and appreciating all the documents and material available on record, passed an order holding that Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave had been cultivating the land bearing Survey No. 183 admeasuring 2 Acres and 11 Gunthas for more than 15 years. It is further submitted that the widow of Bhukhera Sidhik Mumu, who was the owner and occupant of the property at the relevant time, had personally appeared before the office of the Mamlatdar and filed an affidavit stating that the said land had been cultivated by Shashikantbhai for more than 15 years and that he had been working on the said land as a tenant. In the said affidavit, she had also categorically stated that if Shashikantbhai is to be declared as a tenant of the said land, she would have no objection to the same. After considering all the documents and materials placed on record, the Mamlatdar, Naliya, Taluka Abdasa, passed an order declaring the father of the present petitioners, namely Shashikant Dolatram Dave, as a tenant of the said land, subject to the specific condition that he shall personally cultivate the said property. Thereafter, on 03.10.2001, the said property was purchased by Shashikantbhai by way of a registered sale deed, upon payment of the entire sale consideration to the original owner of the property. A copy of the said registered sale deed has been placed on record. Pursuant to the execution of the registered sale deed, a mutation entry came to be made in the revenue record vide Entry No. 534 dated 02.10.2001, which was subsequently certified by the competent revenue authority on Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined 06.11.2001.
4.1) Learned advocate submits that, at this juncture, he would like to refer to the contents of the sale deed. He submits that, at the time of execution of the sale deed, the relevant facts were well within the knowledge of both the purchaser and the seller. It is specifically stated in clear and categorical terms in the sale deed that for more than 15 years the said property had been cultivated by Shashikantbhai. It is further stated that about 10 years prior to the execution of the sale deed, the husband of the vendor had passed away and on the basis of the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 04.09.2004 declaring Shashikantbhai as the tenant of the said property, the vendor decided to sell the said property by accepting the sale consideration through a registered sale deed. Therefore, on the date of execution of the sale deed, these facts were well within the knowledge of both the purchaser and the seller. The copy of the said sale deed was also produced before the concerned revenue authority at the time of mutating the entry in the revenue record. Accordingly, on 17.03.2001, vide Entry No. 700, another entry came to be mutated in the revenue record by bringing the names of the legal heirs on record. The said entry was subsequently certified on 24.10.2009. During the interregnum period, the petitioners were in need of a certificate of agriculturist status and, therefore, they submitted an application before the competent authority. After verifying the office records, the Mamlatdar, Abdasa issued a certificate in favour of the petitioners stating that they are agriculturists by profession. A copy of the said certificate has also Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined been placed on record.
4.2) Learned advocate submits that thereafter, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code before the office of the Collector seeking conversion of the said property from agricultural to non- agricultural use. The said application was filed by assigning specific reasons, inter alia stating that certain discrepancies were found in the revenue record and that there were possible chances that proceedings under the provisions of Section 122 of the Tenancy Act likely to be contemplated against the parties. It is submitted that thereafter, a detailed scrutiny was carried out at the instance of the office of the Collector. In pursuance thereof, various documents and opinions were obtained from different revenue authorities. The petitioners also obtained copies of such documents from the office of the Collector. After considering and appreciating all the documents and material available on record, the concerned authorities tendered their opinions and copies of the said reports were forwarded to the petitioners. The said documents are required to be placed on record, which clearly crystallize the factual position that, at the relevant point of time, on the basis of the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Abdasa as well as the registered sale deed executed between the parties, entries had been mutated in the revenue record and were subsequently certified. Therefore, as such no discrepancy and proceedings have been dropped in the revenue record. Despite this factual position, the Collector issued the impugned notices.
Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined 4.3) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati has heavily relied upon the statutory provisions of law, more particularly Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch) Area Act, 1950. He submits that the said provision mandates that if any defect or irregularity is noticed by the higher revenue authority with regard to any entry mutated in the revenue record, such authority is required to call for the record within a period of one year and thereafter modify, annul, or reverse the same after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. He further submits that while enacting the said provision, the legislature has deliberately used the word "shall" in the operative part of the provision, thereby making the requirement mandatory. Thus, if any irregularity or illegality is noticed by the higher authority, the authority is required to call for the record and initiate appropriate proceedings within a period of one year. It is further submitted that the record reveals that the entry in question was mutated in the revenue record in the year 2001, whereas the proceedings have been initiated by the office of the Collector in the year 2020, i.e., after a lapse of nearly 22 years. Such proceedings, initiated solely on the basis of the statutory provision of law after such an inordinate delay, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submits that the proceedings cannot be initiated after such an unreasonable delay of more than two decades. The relevant facts were well within the knowledge of the revenue authorities. Despite the statutory mandate requiring initiation of proceedings within a reasonable Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined period of one year, the authorities have sought to exercise jurisdiction after an inordinate lapse of time. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the revenue authorities have jurisdiction to initiate or entertain such proceedings after the lapse of the prescribed period.
4.4) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati has referred to various judicial pronouncements and submitted that, since the very beginning, the law on the subject has been clearly settled. In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities are required to be undertaken within a reasonable period of time. The Court has further observed that such reasonable period ordinarily should not exceed one year, and even in exceptional circumstances arising from certain inaction, the period should not extend beyond three years. It is submitted that the aforesaid settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as reiterated by this Court in numerous decisions, is well within the knowledge of the concerned revenue authorities. Despite this settled legal position, the impugned show cause notices have been issued after an inordinate delay with the sole intention of harassing the present petitioners and by creating unwarranted and unnecessary grounds.
4.5) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati has further placed heavy reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Hasmukhbhai Dahyalal Soni vs. Collector -
Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined Gandhinagar reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL - HC 239794. Particular emphasis has been placed upon paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 24 of the said judgment. It has been submitted that even at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice, a writ petition filed by the petitioners can be entertained by this Court in appropriate circumstances. Learned Senior Advocate has further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in State of Gujarat vs. Gunvantrai Trambaklal Vadodariya decided on 10.03.2022 by the Division Bench of this Court. It has been submitted that the Division Bench reiterated the settled principle that when a statutory authority, including a revenue authority, exercises powers vested in it under a statute, such exercise directly affects the rights of the parties concerned. Therefore, long-standing rights and positions that have remained settled for a considerable period should not be disturbed without justification. It has further been observed that if statutory authorities are permitted to exercise their powers without regard to the element of time and at their own discretion, it would unnecessarily disturb settled rights between the parties and upset equities which may have crystallized into legally enforceable rights. Therefore, all statutory powers, including suo motu powers, are required to be exercised within a reasonable period of time, failing which the exercise of such powers would become arbitrary. The principle that statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time is now a well-settled principle of law.
4.6) In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined considering that the impugned proceedings have been initiated by the revenue authorities after an inordinate delay of approximately 22 years, the present petition deserves to be entertained. Accordingly, the impugned notices issued by the Collector are required to be quashed and set aside.
5) Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State, has submitted that the petitioners had preferred an application before the competent revenue authority under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code seeking Non- Agricultural (N.A.) permission for conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural use. Pursuant to the said application, an inquiry was carried out by the office of the Collector. During the course of such inquiry, the authority concerned formed an opinion that the first entry allegedly mutated in the revenue record declaring the father of the petitioners as a tenant was not found reflected in the available revenue record. Therefore, the authority concerned undertook an inquiry in order to trace the original record, however, the same could not be located despite attempts made by the office. He further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that once a quasi-judicial authority has passed an order and the same has attained finality, the revenue entry is required to be mutated in the revenue record in accordance with such order. He submitted that it appears that the Mamlatdar, Abdasa, had passed an order on 04.09.2001, and during the relevant period the region had suffered a devastating earthquake, due to which even the office of the Collector had to be temporarily shifted to private premises. In such circumstances, Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined there are all possible chances that, on account of the said natural calamity, the original record may not have been properly preserved and therefore, could not be traced during the course of the subsequent inquiry.
5.1) Learned AGP has further submitted that it is an admitted position of fact and also a settled proposition of law that as per the provisions of Section 135C of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, where any document is registered and a person acquires rights in the land by way of succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, or gift, such person is exempted from the obligation of reporting the acquisition of rights to the designated officer, in that event, it becomes the duty of the designated officer to mutate the relevant entry in the Record of Rights pursuant to the execution of the registered document. He submitted that the father of the petitioners had purchased the property by executing a registered sale deed, pursuant to which a corresponding entry came to be mutated in the revenue record and the same was subsequently certified by the competent revenue authority.
5.2) Learned AGP has further referred to the provisions of Section 135D(1) and 135D(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and submitted that when the document in question is a registered one and no objection are raised by any concerned party, the designated officer is required to mutate the entry in the revenue record and thereafter certify the same. He further submitted that subsequently, an amendment was introduced in Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined the statute by incorporating sub-section (8), whereby powers were conferred upon the officer concerned to examine whether the entry sought to be mutated in the revenue record violates or contravenes any provision of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. In such circumstances, the officer concerned may refuse to certify such entry and is required to intimate the concerned person in writing regarding such refusal. However, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the sale deed was executed in the year 2001, pursuant to which the corresponding entry came to be mutated in the revenue record and was subsequently certified by the competent authority. Therefore, at that relevant point of time, the designated officer did not possess any legitimate ground or authority to raise a dispute with regard to the authenticity or validity of the registered document.
5.3) Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi has submitted that during the scrutiny of the documents, an issue arose to the effect that the Mamlatdar, Abdasa, had passed an order declaring the father of the petitioners as a tenant, however, the entry to that effect was not found to have been mutated in the Record of Rights. Therefore, the Collector deemed it necessary to inquire into the said aspect and formed a prima facie opinion that, upon completion of such inquiry, appropriate action would be required to be taken. He further submitted that, at that relevant point of time, the applications preferred by the petitioners were kept pending and an intimation to that effect was given to the petitioners, specifically stating that certain defects had been noticed with regard to Entry Nos. 534 and 700. It was further Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined indicated that proceedings for breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, more particularly under Section 122, were required to be initiated. For the said purpose, the Collector had also called for necessary information and records from the concerned revenue authorities. It is further submitted that after receiving the relevant papers from the concerned authorities, the Collector formed an opinion that certain defects were noticed at the time of mutating the entries in the revenue record and that it appeared that some fraudulent activity might have been committed. Therefore, according to the learned AGP, it was considered appropriate to initiate proceedings under Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbh Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958.
5.4) Learned AGP further submitted that the documents which have been called for by the office of the Collector are required to be supplied, and upon receipt of the same the proceedings shall be carried to their logical conclusion in accordance with law. He submitted that the present stage is a premature stage, and therefore, at this juncture, the show-cause notice issued by the office of the Collector ought not to be quashed and set aside by this Court. Considering the above-stated totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the present petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
6) Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the record and proceedings of the Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined case, this Court is of the opinion that before adverting to the issues involved in the present matter, it would be appropriate to refer to certain sequence of events and undisputed facts emerging from the record. It appears that the Mamlatdar, Naliya (Abdasa), by an order dated 04.09.2001, declared Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave as an agricultural tenant after duly considering and appreciating the documents and material available on record. While passing the said order, a specific condition was imposed that the name of Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave, who had been carrying out agricultural activities for more than 15 years, shall be mutated in the revenue record in Form No. 12 as a tenant, with a further condition that the said Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave himself shall personally cultivate the agricultural land. Thereafter, on 03.10.2001, a registered sale deed came to be executed between Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave and the original owner of the property. Pursuant to the execution of the said sale deed, a mutation entry came to be posted in the revenue record being Entry No. 534 dated 02.10.2001, and the said entry was subsequently submitted for certification on 06.11.2001. On the strength of the said registered sale deed, Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave became the absolute owner and occupant of the said land. Subsequently, on 24.03.2006, the Mamlatdar, Abdasa issued a certificate in favour of Petitioner No. 3 after verifying the revenue records and confirming that the name of the said petitioner had been reflected in the revenue record as an agriculturist for several years. Thereafter, due to the unfortunate demise of Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave on Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined 05.11.2007, the names of the present petitioners came to be mutated in the revenue record by way of heirship entry being Entry No. 700 dated 17.03.2009, which was subsequently certified on 24.10.2009. It further appears that, pursuant to the agricultural status granted to Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave by the competent revenue authority, he had purchased different parcels of land within the territorial jurisdiction of District Kutch by executing registered sale deeds, pursuant to which mutation entries were also posted in the revenue records and subsequently certified. Thereafter, the present petitioners preferred an application under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code seeking conversion of the said land from agricultural to non-agricultural use. At the relevant point of time, certain issues were raised while processing the said application. It appears that the application was referred for scrutiny as certain discrepancies were allegedly noticed in the revenue record and it was suggested that proceedings under Section 122 of the Tenancy Act might have been initiated against the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the office of the Collector called for reports from the subordinate revenue authorities. After considering the reports and the material placed on record by the concerned revenue officers, the Collector arrived at a conclusion that, pursuant to the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Abdasa (Naliya) on 04.09.2001, the corresponding mutation entry had not been properly reflected in the revenue record and that certain documents pertaining to the transaction were allegedly not traceable in the record. It was further observed that the entry Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined appeared to be questionable. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, the Collector issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners under Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbh Region and Kutch Area) Act in respect of Survey No. 183. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the show-cause notice issued by the concerned authority, present petition is filed.
6.1) At this juncture, I would like to rely and refer the provision of Section 110 of The Gujarat Tenancy and Agriculture Lands (Vidarbh region and Kutch) Area Act, which reads as under:
''Revisional powers of Collector. - (1) Where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it, the Collector may, suo motu or on a reference made in this behalf by [**] the State Government, at any time, -
(a) call for the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of the [Mamlatdar] or Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such [Mamlatdar] or Tribunal, as the case may be, and
(b) pass such order thereon as he deems fit:
Provided that, no such record shall be called for after the expiry of one year from the date of such order and no order of such [Mamlatdar] or Tribunal shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and be heard.'' A plain and meaningful reading of the provisions of law itself crystallise the position of fact that at the time of enactment of provisions of law, a statutory embargo has been engrafted in the statute itself by the legislature. Therefore, the Collector has got territorial jurisdictions to initiat suo motu revision proceedings if Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined any defect is to be found in the order of the Mamlatdar and/ or Deputy Collector, with a specific stipulation that such powers can be exercised within a period of one year. Admittedly, herein this case on hand, the order was passed by the Mamlatdar on 04.09.2001, whereas the notice under Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch) Area Act order has been issued to the petitioner by the Collector on 20.09.2023. There is a gross and inordinate delay of 22 years in initiation of the proceedings. When a specific statutory embargo has been engrafted in the statute itself, in that event, after the lapse of more than 22 years, the Collector does not have any territorial jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Section 110 of the Act. At this juncture, the said principle of law has already laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in numerous case laws which crystallise the position of fact that when specific time limit to take cognizance of the matter, such powers cannot be exercised after the lapse of the prescribed period. If such powers are exercised after such a lapse of time, in that event, it can safely be said that the concerned authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the said application and solely on that count, the proceedings instituted by the concerned authority are required to be declared as vitiated one. Further, as per the statutory provisions of the said section, it is provided that an order passed by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal shall not be modified, annulled, or reversed after a period of one year. Admittedly, the said order was passed by the Mamlatdar on 04.09.2001, whereas cognizance of the said issue Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined was taken by the Collector only on 20.09.2023. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of about 22 years in the initiation of the proceedings. The revenue authority has miserably failed to explain any reasonable cause for such belated initiation of proceedings. It further emerges from the record that a registered sale deed had been executed between the original owner of the property and the father of the petitioners, pursuant to which a mutation entry had also been posted in the revenue record and subsequently certified by the competent revenue authority. A copy of the said registered sale deed has also been placed on record. In the operative portion of the sale deed, it is clearly and categorically mentioned that an order had been passed by the Mamlatdar, Abdasa-Naliya, declaring Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave as a tenant, pursuant to which the parties had agreed to transfer the said property by executing a registered sale deed. A copy of the affidavit of the original owner of the property has also been placed on record, wherein it is categorically stated that the land had been used and cultivated by Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave for more than 15 years, and that she had no objection if he was declared as a tenant. The cumulative effect of these documents clearly demonstrates that, at the time of initiation of the proceedings, the original owner of the property had personally remained present before the Mamlatdar and had also filed an affidavit specifically stating that she had no objection to Shri Shashikant Dolatram Dave being declared as a tenant. After considering the said material, the Mamlatdar had passed the order in question. It also appears from the record that Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined the name of the father of the petitioners had been reflected in the revenue record for a considerable period of time, and he had remained in lawful ownership and possession of the said property for several years. During the interregnum period, the petitioners had also obtained a certificate declaring them to be agriculturists, which had been issued by the competent authority after verifying the relevant records and proceedings. Not only that, but thereafter, the heirship entry in favour of the petitioners had also been mutated and subsequently certified by the competent revenue authority.
6.2) It further appears from the record that, on the basis of the opinion sought by the Collector from various revenue authorities, reports were submitted by the concerned authorities, copies were also forwarded to the petitioners and have been placed on record. The contents of the said reports clearly reveal that after verifying and scrutinizing the relevant documents, the mutation entries had been made in the name of the father of the petitioners by the competent revenue authority and were thereafter, duly certified. Consequently, the concerned authorities had expressed a positive opinion recommending that the application preferred by the petitioners for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use be considered in accordance with law.
6.3) Now, so far as the principles of law are concerned, at this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to and rely upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined Hasmukhbhai Dahyalal Soni vs. Collector, Gandhinagar, reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 239794, in Special Civil Application No. 23496 of 2007, as stated thereof:
''xxx...20. In S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [1976 (37) STC 425], Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined:
"Apposite the fourth and last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suo motu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so done. Within a few months of the passing of the appellate order by the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner proceeded to revise and revised the said order. There was no undue or unreasonable delay made by the Commissioner. It may be stated here that an appeal has to be filed by an assessee within the prescribed time and so also a time- limit has been prescribed for the assessee to move in revision. The appellate or the revisional powers in an appeal or revision filed by an assessee can be exercised in due course. No time-limit has been prescribed for it. It may well be that for an exercise of the suo motu power of revision also, the revisional authority has to initiate the proceeding within a reasonable time. Any unreasonable delay in exercise may affect its validity. What is a reasonable time, however, will depend upon the facts of each case."
21. Our attention has been drawn to a decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa & Anr. v. M/s. Halari Store etc. [(1997) 7 SCC 715] wherein this Court, while considering the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, held:
"...But, the same is not the position where the Commissioner decides to exercise his suo motu revisional power to revise an appellate order. Significantly the words 'on his own motion' occurring in the enactment are conspicuously present in the proviso Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined the legislature has excluded the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise an appellate order if invoked at the instance of a dealer or a person when such dealer or person has a remedy by way of an appeal. As noticed earlier, the limitation on the suo motu power of the Commissioner as to revise an appellate order has not been expressly provided in the proviso. In the absence of any expressed provisions, no limitation on suo motu power of the Commissioner to revise an appellate order can be implied. We accordingly hold that the provisions of proviso to sub- section (4)(a) of Section 23 of the Act do not prohibit the Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional power to revise an appellate order."
22. The question as to what would be the reasonable period did not fall for consideration therein. The binding precedent of this Court, some of which had been referred to us heretofore, had not been considered. The counsel appearing for the parties were remiss in bringing these to the notice of this Court. Furthermore, from a perusal of the impugned notice dated 4.9.2006, it is apparent that the Revisional Authority did not assign any reason as to why such a notice was being issued after a period of 5 years.
23. Question of limitation being a jurisdictional question, the writ petition was maintainable.
24. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily the writ court would not entertain the writ application questioning validity of a notice only, particularly, when the writ petitioner would have an effective remedy under the Act itself. This case, however, poses a different question. The Revisional Authority, being a creature of the statute, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, would not be able to determine as to what would be the reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 21(1) of the Act. The High Court, furthermore, in its judgment, has referred to some binding precedents which have been operating in the field.
The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment.
Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined ''16 The decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above, fortifies the submission of Mr. Shah that even at the stage of show cause notice, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because, the question of limitation being a jurisdictional question, the writ petition is maintainable.
17 This very Court had the occasion to deal with the very same issue in the case of Shivcharan Lalchand Bhatiya Vs. Sejal K. Mevada [Special Civil Application No. 12250 of 2017 decided on 05.04.2018] wherein the following has been observed:
''xxx....19. In one of the earlier decisions of this Court in S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India 1976 (2) SCC 181, this Court held that excercise of suo motu power of revision must also be within a reasonable time and that any unreasonable delay in the exercise may affect the validity. But what would constitute reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each case.
21. To the same effect is the view taken by this Court in Sulochana Chandrakant Galande. v. Pune Municipal Transport and Others (2010) 8 SCC 467 where this Court reiterated the legal position and held that the power to revise orders and proceedings cannot be exercised arbitrarily and interminably. This Court observed:
"The legislature in its wisdom did not fix a time- limit for exercising the revisional power nor inserted the words "at any time" in Section 34 of the 1976 Act. It does not mean that the legislature intended to leave the orders passed under the Act open to variation for an indefinite period inasmuch as it would have the effect of rendering title of the holders/allottee(s) permanently precarious and in a state of perpetual uncertainty. In case, it is assumed that the legislature has conferred an everlasting and interminable power in point of time, the title over the declared surplus land, in the hands of the State/allottee, would forever remain Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined virtually insecure. The Court has to construe the statutory provision in a way which makes the provisions workable, advancing the purpose and object of enactment of the statute".
24. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.'' 6.4) Further, in the case of Gunvantrai Trambaklal Vadodariya (supra), I would like to put reliance upon certain observations read as under:
''3.1 In the year 1993, the petitioners were given show-cause notice from the Additional Collector, Palitana - respondent No.3, in which it was alleged that the petitioners were not agriculturists and in that view the transaction of purchase of land was bad and the entry was liable to be cancelled in exercise of suo motu powers. The Deputy Collector, Palitana in RTS Case No.125 of 1993 cancelled the entry as per order dated 31.7.2000. The Revision Application preferred by the petitioners there against failed as the Collector dismissed on 3.10.2001. In the revisional proceedings, the Revisional Authority remanded the matter as per order dated 4.5.2012.Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined 3.3 The Collector, however cancelled the entry as per his order dated 21.4.2013. Thereafter the Revision Application No.3 of 2013 was preferred which was dismissed and the order of the Collector was maintained. This led the petitioners to file the Special Civil Application challenging the said orders. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition resting his reasoning on the ground that suo motu powers were issued by the authorities after unreasonable time after fifteen years.
5.2 Any statutory authority including revenue authorities, when exercises powers vested in it as per the statute under which it functions, the exercise affects the rights of the parties who are dealt with by the authority. It is trite that long existing position and rights settled between the parties since long are not made to upset. If the statutory authorities are permitted to exercise powers irrespective of time and as per the their whims, it would result into unnecessarily upsetting the rights between the parties and rendering the equities which may have crystallized to ripe in form of the rights. It is in this view that the principle is evolved by the courts that statutory authorities are enjoined to exercise their power within reasonable time irrespective of description of period of limitation in the statute under which they function. All statutory powers are required to be exercised within reasonable time else exercise would be arbitrary. The dictum of law that powers including the suo motu powers are to be exercised within reasonable time is well settled as above.''
7) In view of the aforesaid submissions and upon due consideration thereof, learned AGP Mr. Trivedi as raised contention, admittedly, opposing the petitions solely on the ground that on the show-cause notice has been issued by the competent revenue authority and that the petitioner has an adequate and valuable opportunity to produce necessary documents and make submissions. It is further submitted that Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21397/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026s undefined after considering and appreciating all the documents and material available on record, if any substance is found, in that event, the proceedings can be dropped or withdrawn by the concerned authority. However, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that issuance of the show-cause notice need not have to be entertained by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Further, learned senior advocate, Mr. Nanavaty has emphatically submitted that the issue raised by the learned AGP is no longer res integra, inasmuch as in a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held that where, by any act or conduct on the part of the concerned authority, the principles of natural justice are violated, in that event, a writ petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable and is required to be entertained. The said principles of laws have already been reiterated and applied by this Court in the above-referred case laws.
8) Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts of the case and the ratio laid down in the above-stated decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order holding the show- cause notice issued by the Collector, Bhuj deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the petition is allowed.
9) Rule is made absolute. Directed service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) GARVITA Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Mar 20 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:29:03 IST 2026