Gujarat High Court
M/S Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd vs Special Secretary ( Appeals ) on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12733 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
M/S ANCHOR DAEWOO INDUSTRIES LTD
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY ( APPEALS ) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITA PATHAK, APG for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 12/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
''(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.03.2018 passed in Revision Application No. MVV/GANOT/KUTCH/01/2017 as well as order dated 7/1/2017 passed by the Collector, Kutch and further be pleased to restore the order passed by the learned Page 1 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined Mamlatdar and ALT dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold and declare that order passed by the learned District Collector confirmed by the learned SSRD are illegal, arbitrary, devoid of merits and passed in contravention to the provisions of Section 89 and 89A of the Act, 1958;
(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed in Revision Application No. MVV/GANOT/KUTCH/01/2017 as well as order dated 7/1/2017 passed by the Collector, Kutch and further be pleased to restrain the authority - Mamlatdar and ALT from initiating proceedings under Section 122 of the Act for alleged breach of Section 89 as per the order passed by the learned District Collector;
(D) During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and further be pleased to restrain the respondent authority from taking any action which would hamper the ongoing industrial activity undertaken by the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the District Collector to process Page 2 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined the application under Section 65-B of the BLRC without being influenced by the present proceedings; (E) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.''
2) The case of the petitioner can be summarised in a nutshell as under:
2.1) On 18.09.2002, M/s. Anchor Kenwood Enterprise purchased the property in question from the original owner, Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Tank, by way of executing a registered sale deed.
Pursuant thereto, Revenue Entry No. 2004 came to be mutated in the revenue record and was subsequently certified on 23.01.2003. Thereafter, Anchor Kenwood Enterprise, Propreitary concern of S.D. Family Trust, transferred the said land in favour of Anchor Electronics Limited by executing the necessary transfer documents. Pursuant to the said transaction, Revenue Entry No. 2093 came to be mutated in the revenue record on 14.06.2003. Subsequently, the said company preferred an application before the competent authority stating that the name of the company had been amended and, therefore, the said amenment was required to be reflected in the revenue record. Accordingly, the name of the company was amended to Anchor Daewoo Industries Limited, and the corresponding entry was mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 2167. Thereafter, the petitioner company preferred an application before the Page 3 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined competent authority seeking permission for bona fide industrial purpose with retrospective effect. The said application was entertained and the Deputy Collector, Bhuj issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner on 06.02.2004. Thereafter, in the year 2006, the petitioner company once again preferred an application seeking permission in respect of Survey Nos. 64 and 65 under Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958. The said application was considered and a certificate was issued by the office of the Deputy Collector on 20.02.2006, subject to certain conditions. Pursuant thereto, Revenue Entry No. 2609 came to be mutated on 20.03.2006 and was subsequently certified on 21.07.2006. Thereafter, as per the established practice, the petitioner preferred an appropriate application before the District Collector for availing permission under Section 65B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. During the scrutiny of the said application, the competent authority formed an opinion that there appeared to be a breach of Section 89 of the Act, considering Entry No. 2004 mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the sale transaction between Anchor Kenwood Enterprise and Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Tank. Pursuant thereto, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Bhuj, initiated proceedings under Section 122 of the Act, 1958 for the alleged breach of Section 89 by issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply stating that the company is engaged in the manufacturing of various products and that, for administrative and technical reasons, the Page 4 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined name of the company was amended, however, the capital investment and immovable properties continued to remain with the parent company, i.e, Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd. After considering and appreciating the documents and materials placed on record, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Bhuj, dropped the proceedings and withdrew the notice issued to the company. As per the prevailing procedure, the relevant papers were thereafter forwarded to the office of the District Collector for approval of the said decision. Upon verification and scrutiny of the documents available on record, the District Collector, Bhuj, formed an opinion that at the time of execution of the first sale deed between the company and Bharatbhai Tank, the requisite permission had not been obtained. In the absence of supporting documents, the Collector concluded that there was a breach of Section 89 of the Act. Accordingly, the Collector initiated proceedings under Section 110 of the Act and issued a show- cause notice to the petitioner on 22.08.2016. The petitioner opposed the said proceedings by filing a detailed reply, however, the documents placed on record were not properly considered. Ultimately, the Collector passed an order cancelling the transactions executed between the parties and also cancelled the revenue entries mutated in the revenue record, holding that prima facie a breach of Section 89 had occurred at the time of execution of the sale deed pertaining to Survey Nos. 64 and 65.
2.2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, delivered by the Collector an appeal had been prepared before Page 5 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by raising manifold grounds but reason based on to the authority concerned without considering and appreciating all those documents and material available on record, straightaway by reiterating the reasons assigned by the Collector at the time of dismissing the entry the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, hence, present petition is filed.
3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for Respondent No. 1.
4) Learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the first transaction had taken place between M/s. Anchor Kenwood Enterprise and the owner and vendor of the property, Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Tank, on 18.09.2002. Pursuant thereto, a revenue entry came to be mutated and subsequently certified by the competent revenue authority. However, at the relevant point of time, a mistake occurred on the part of the company as they had not obtained the required prior permission from the concerned authority. Thereafter, another transaction took place between two companies by way of execution of a registered sale deed, pursuant to which a revenue entry was again mutated and subsequently certified. It is further submitted that thereafter, Page 6 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined the name of the company was changed and, therefore, an application came to be preferred before the concerned authority for amendment of the company's name in the revenue record. Accordingly, necessary corrections were carried out in the revenue record by mutating an appropriate entry reflecting the changed name of the company. Subsequently, on 06.02.2004, an application was preferred before the office of the Deputy Collector, Bhuj, seeking permission for bona fide industrial purposes with retrospective effect. At that relevant point of time, all necessary documents and materials were furnished before the authority concerned. After considering and appreciating the documents and materials available on record, the Deputy Collector granted the requisite permission by issuing a certificate in favour of the company under Section 89 read with Section 45B, subject to certain conditions. A copy of the said order has been placed on record. He further submits that if this Court takes a cursory glance at the contents of the said document, it would reveal that all the transactions that took place during the interregnum period between the company and other parties have been specifically mentioned in the chart in a very clear and categorical terms, wherein Survey Nos. 64 and 65 have been shown at Serial No. 4.
4.1) Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit has submitted that, at this juncture, he would like to refer to the statutory provisions of law, more particularly Section 89 of the Act. Upon perusal of the said provision, he submits that, admittedly, as per the statutory Page 7 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined provisions of law, the powers are conferred upon and are to be exercised by the Collector. However, in the present case, the Deputy Collector, Bhuj who had issued the certificate in favour of the company, exercised such powers. Therefore, by virtue of the exercise of powers by the Deputy Collector in issuing the certificate in favour of the petitioner, it clearly crystallizes the position that, at that relevant point of time, such powers had been delegated to the Deputy Collector to carry out the said exercise. He further submits that, at the time of issuance of the certificate, the concerned authority had imposed certain conditions, and it has also been stated in very categorically terms that the said certificate had been issued with retrospective effect.
4.2) Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit has taken the Court through the entire order and submitted that even the history of the ownership of the property and the entries mutated in the revenue record from time to time, on the basis of execution of various deeds, have been described in a very clear and categorical terms. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the revenue authority had issued the certificate without verifying the relevant records and proceedings. He further submits that if this Court would make cursory glance at the discussion on the merits of the case, it would be evident that the deed executed between Bharatbhai Tank and the company has been specifically referred to said transaction and had been regularized with retrospective effect. It is also an admitted position of fact that Page 8 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined the said certificate issued by the office of the Deputy Collector continues to remain in existence as on date. Unless and until the said certificate is set aside or annulled, no further proceedings can be initiated on the basis of the revenue record. He further submits that, thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 65B before the competent revenue authority for regularization of the proceedings. However, in the said proceedings, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Bhuj, came to the conclusion that there was an express breach of the provisions of Section 89 of the Act, and therefore proceedings under Section 122 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code were required to be initiated.
4.3) The petitioner appeared and filed a detailed reply and after considering and appreciating all the documents and materials available on record, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Bhuj, came to the conclusion that there was no breach of the provisions of Section 89 of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings instituted against the petitioner under Section 122 were dropped. However, the said proceedings were taken into suo moto revision by the Collector. Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit submitted that there is a fundamental flaw in the initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the revenue authority, inasmuch as the order was passed by the Deputy Collector while exercising the powers delegated to him by the Collector. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Collector could not have been taken into as breach of the statutory provisions of law at the instance of the Page 9 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined Mamlatdar. He further submitted that these particular facts were required to be taken into consideration by the Collector at the time of issuance of the show-cause notice in the suo moto revision proceedings. Thus, the cumulative effect of the statutory provisions as well as the action initiated by the authorities concerned clearly crystallizes the position that the revenue authority concerned had no jurisdiction to entertain or initiate such proceedings. He further submitted that, so far as the second limb of the contention is concerned, at the time of issuance of the certificate that too issued retrospectively, and at the time of initiation of the proceedings, the said certificate issued by the highest revenue authority was already in existence. In such circumstances, the proceedings initiated at the instance of the Mamlatdar clearly amount to exceeding his jurisdiction, and the action of the Mamlatdar is per se illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the statutory provisions of law, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.4) Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit has further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law, as held time and again by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in numerous cases, that suo moto powers are required to be exercised by the revenue authorities only when it is found that entries have been mutated in the revenue record in clear breach of the statutory provisions of law, in that event, the authorities may exercise such powers by initiating appropriate proceedings. Although no specific time limit is prescribed under the statute for initiating such Page 10 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined proceedings, it is equally well settled that, in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period of time. The reasonable period of time cannot ordinarily exceed three years, as repeatedly held and enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judicial pronouncements. In the present case, admittedly, the first entry was mutated in the revenue record in the year 2002, whereas the proceedings were initiated by the authority concerned in the year 2015-2016, after a lapse of approximately 13 years. Therefore, there is gross and inordinate delay in the initiation of the proceedings and solely on the ground of such delayed initiation, the orders passed by the authorities concerned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4.5) Considering the above-stated totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is submitted that this is a fit case where the indulgence of this Court is needed, and therefore the orders passed by the revenue authorities deserve to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
5) The present petition is strongly opposed by the Learned AGP, Mr. Aditya Pathak, who submits that the order passed by the Collector, which has subsequently been confirmed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, has been passed by the concerned revenue authorities after duly considering and appreciating all the documents and material available on record. The orders passed by the revenue authorities Page 11 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined are based upon concurrent findings of fact. He further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is ordinarily slow in interfering with the decisions of revenue authorities when such decisions are based upon concurrent findings of fact. Learned AGP further submits that the entire sequence of events, incidents, and occurrences which took place during the pendency of the proceedings has already been described in detail by the petitioner. Therefore, with a view to saving the valuable time of this Court, he would not reiterate the same facts. However, he submits that the fact remains that the company is a juristic person, and the Anchor Kenwood Enterprise had purchased the said property by executing a registered sale deed, pursuant to which an entry was mutated in the revenue record and subsequently certified. It is an admitted position of fact that, at that relevant point of time, the concerned parties were required to obtain necessary permission from the competent authority. However, without obtaining such permission, the transaction was carried out. Thereafter, the company sold the said property to a second company, and subsequently, a third transaction appears to have been executed between the parties. Thereafter, an application was preferred before the competent authority for the purpose of obtaining a certificate under Section 89 of the Act. The said certificate was considered and issued by the concerned authority. However, it appears that at the time of issuance of the certificate, the transactions carried out in contravention of the statutory Page 12 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined provisions of law and those particular beach of provisions occurred which could not be verified by the authority in its true spirit and proper perspective. Consequently, without taking into consideration the aforesaid transactions which had taken place earlier, the certificate came to be issued. He further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that although the effect of such certificate is retrospective in nature, during the course of scrutiny of the documents, the Collector noticed that at the time of the first transaction, the required permission had not been obtained, nor was any document placed on record in support thereof. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it is required to be presumed that the said permission had not been obtained at the time of execution of the transaction. Therefore, it can be said that there was an apparent breach of the statutory provisions of law at the time of execution of the sale deed, and consequently, the entry mutated in the revenue records required to be declared as cancelled. Subsequently, in the appellate proceedings, the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department also confirmed the view adopted by the Collector. Therefore, according to the learned AGP, no error of law or fact can be said to have been committed by the revenue authorities while passing the impugned orders.
5.1) Considering the above-stated totality of the facts of the matter, this is a fit case wherein order passed by the revenue authorities are required to be confirmed by dismissing the present petition.
Page 13 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined
6) Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon careful consideration of the record and proceedings of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, at this juncture, before dwelling into the core issues involved in the present matter, it would be appropriate and necessary to set out the sequence of events as well as the undisputed facts emerging from the record, which have a direct bearing on the present matter. The same are delineated hereunder:
6.1) It emerges from the record that the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner had purchased the subject property by way of execution of a registered sale deed from the vendor, namely Bharatbhai Tank, on 18.09.2002. Pursuant to the execution of the said registered sale deed, a corresponding mutation entry being Entry No. 2004 came to be recorded in the revenue record, which was subsequently certified on 23.01.2003 by the competent revenue authority after following the prescribed procedure. Thereafter, it seeems that Anchor Kenwood Enterprise, having acquired the property, transferred the said land in question in favour of Anchor Electronics Limited by executing a registered sale deed. In consequence thereof, the relevant mutation entry was again effected in the revenue record, which also came to be duly certified by the competent authority, thereby recognizing the said transaction in the official revenue records. Subsequently, Anchor Electronics Limited preferred applications before the competent authority in respect Page 14 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined of Survey Nos. 64 and 65 under the provisions of Section 89 of the Act. The said applications were examined and considered by the Deputy Collector who was pleased to grant the necessary permissions upon due scrutiny and satisfaction and issued the requisite certificate vide order dated 20.02.2006. It is pertinent to note that such permissions were granted with certain conditions and were accorded retrospective effect. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Mutation Entry No. 2609 was recorded in the revenue record on 20.03.2006, which thereafter came to be certified on 21.04.2006. Thus, the transactions in question attained finality in the revenue record at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred an application before the District Collector seeking permission under Section 65D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the prescribed format. During the course of scrutiny of the said application, the District Collector noticed there was an alleged breach of the provisions of Section 89 of the Act in relation to Mutation Entry No. 2004, which had originally been recorded pursuant to the sale transaction between Bharatbhai Tank and Anchor Kenwood Enterprise. In view of the aforesaid observation, and in accordance with the directions issued by the District Collector, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhuj, initiated proceedings under Section 122 of the Act, 1958, by issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging breach of the provisions of Section 89 of the Act. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply along with all relevant documentary evidence. It was specifically contended that the petitioner company is Page 15 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined engaged in manufacturing activities and that, for administrative, commercial, and technical convenience, the name of the company had undergone an amendment. However, it was clarified that the capital investment as well as the immovable properties continued to remain vested with and under the control of the parent company, namely Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd., and therefore, allegedly no breach could be said to have occurred. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhuj, upon due consideration of the material placed on record and after appreciating the factual and legal aspects of the matter, arrived at a categorical finding that no breach of the provisions of Section 122 of the Act was made out. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated under the said provision came to be dropped qua Survey Nos. 64 and 65 vide order dated 21.09.2015.
6.2) As per the established administrative practice and procedure, the relevant papers and record were thereafter forwarded to the office of the District Collector for further scrutiny. Upon verification of the same, the District Collector formed an opinion that the Mamlatdar had failed to consider the material on record in its true spirit and proper perspective. On such premise, the District Collector proceeded to initiate suo moto proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 110 of the Act. The petitioner once again submitted a detailed reply placing on record all relevant documents and reiterating the earlier contentions. However, it appears that the said material was not duly appreciated and considered by the District Collector in its Page 16 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined true spirit and proper perspective, and ultimately, an adverse order came to be passed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. However, the said revision came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by the District Collector. Hence, the present petition has been filed before this Court.
6.3) Upon a careful and bare perusal of the record, it clearly emerges that the registered sale deed dated 18.09.2002 executed between Bharatbhai Tank and Anchor Kenwood Enterprise was sought to be examined and brought within the consideration of the provisions of Section 89 of the Act by the Mamlatdar only in the year 2015. Thus, it is evident that the proceedings came to be initiated after an inordinate delay of approximately 13 years from the date of the original transaction. The legal position with regard to such delayed exercise of statutory powers is no longer res integra. It is a settled principle of law that where a statute confers power upon an authority, such power is required to be exercised within a reasonable period of time. Even in cases where no specific limitation period is prescribed, the authority cannot exercise such powers after an inordinate and unreasonable delay, as such delay itself vitiates the exercise of jurisdiction. This principle assumes greater significance in matters pertaining to revenue administration, where actions taken after a long lapse of time tend to unsettle Page 17 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined vested rights and disturb settled positions, thereby causing serious prejudice and hardship to the affected parties, who may have altered their position based on the existing state of affairs. The aforesaid principle has been consistently recognized and reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of decisions. In the landmark judgment of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphatically held that powers vested in revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable time and that belated exercise of such powers would render the action invalid. Similarly, in the case of Ranchodbhai Lallubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1984 (2) GLR 1225, this Court deprecated the practice of exercising powers after an unreasonable delay and observed that, in the meantime, the affected parties would have materially altered their position, and any such belated interference would result in irreparable injury and serious prejudice.
6.4) In yet another decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, it was held that even a delay of 31 years in initiating proceedings was wholly unreasonable and could not be countenanced in law, as the same would defeat the very principles of certainty, finality, and fairness in administrative action. It is stated that:
''Even the void transaction under Sec. 9(1) if allowed to remain effective for considerably long period, the authority Page 18 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined named therein will be precluded from initiating proceedings to annul it. Even the void transaction cannot be said to be nonexistent in all cases and in all situations. It can remain effective and in existence till it is invalidated and set aside. If its existence is allowed to remain for a considerable period and with the passage of time it brings about several changes, creating valuable rights in favour of considerable section of people, it is difficult to accept the proposition that despite the change the Collector would be entitled to exercise power under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 9 of the Act. When the things have been allowed to remain as such for years together, the purchaser cannot be deprived of his possession so as to render indirect benefit to the seller who was equally responsible for entering into such illegal transaction. When the authority had considerable opportunities to know about the transaction and despite that, has not taken any action thereon for years together, such authority cannot be allowed to exercise powers conferred upon it at a belated stage. The concept of reasonableness of time will equally apply in such cases. Therefore, even powers conferred upon the Collector under sub-secs. (2) and (3) of Sec. 9 are required to be exercised within a reasonable time. [Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) GLH 34 : (2005 (3) GLR 1852)]''
7) At this juncutre, I would like to rely and refer the decisions made in this Court in the case of Koli Parshottambhai Narsinhbhai & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat Thro Secretary (Appeals) & Ors. in Special Civil Application No. 253 of 2013 decided on 17.02.2026. More particularly extracts of Paragraph Nos. 15 to 21, here as under:
''15. The question involved in the present case is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & another vs. D. Narsing Rao and others - (2015) 3 SCC 695, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with exercise of suo motu Page 19 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined revisional powers after nearly 5 decades and has ruled that unexplained and inordinate delay in invoking such power would itself tantamount to fraud upon statute apart from being arbitrary and opposed to rule of law. Useful reference can be made to the observations made in paragraphs 14, 16 & 17 which read as under:
14. Admittedly, the names of the predecessors-in-title of the respondents are found mentioned in kharsa pahani of the year 1954-1955 pertaining to khsra Nos. 36 and 37 of Gopanpally Village. The purchase of the said lands by the respondents from them under registered sale deeds are also not seriously disputed.
The further fact is that they have been regularly paying land revenue to the Government since the year 1954. The appellants herein issued impugned notice dated 31- 12-2004 under Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F (1907) for cancellation of entries in the kharsa pahani of the year 1953-1954 by fixing the date of inquiry as 5-2-2005 and that notice is the subject-matter of challenge here.
16. No time-limit is prescribed in the above section for the exercise of suo motu power but the question is as to whether the suo motu power could be exercised after a period of 50 years. The Government as early as in the year 1991 passed an order reserving 477 acres of land in Survey Nos. 36 and 37 of Gopanpally Village for house sites to the Government employees. In other words, the Government had every occasion to verify the revenue entries pertaining to the said lands while passing the Government Order dated 24-9-1991 but no exception was taken to the entries found. Further, the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No. 21719 of 1997 challenging the Government Order dated 24-9- 1991 and even at that point of time no action was initiated pertaining to the entries in the said survey numbers. Thereafter, the purchasers of land from respondents 1 and 2 filed a civil suit in OS No. 12 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for a declaration that they were Page 20 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined lawful owners and possessors of certain plots of land in Survey No. 36, and after contest, the suit was decreed and said decree is allowed to become final. By the impugned notice dated 31-12-2004 the suo motu revision powers under Section 166-B referred to above is sought to be exercised after five decades and if it is allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous and serious implications leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties.
17. In the light of what is stated above we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation, was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law.
16. Reiteration of this aspect is again found in paragraphs 30 and 31, where the Apex Court refers to the decision in the case of Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. vs. District Board, Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC 598 and in paragraph 31 where the principle of law is laid down as under:
"31. 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 Page 21 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined 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."
17. In the present case also there is delay of 11 years in initiating suo-motu proceedings after the certification of Entry No. 650 in the year 1992 in favour of the writ applicants. Therefore, facts in the present case and facts of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court are similar in nature so far as the nature of the dispute and the extent of delay are concerned. Hence, even in this case, it can safely be said that exercise of power by the Assistant Collector tantamounts to arbitrary and illegal exercise of such power.
18. Moreover, when the question of delay comes, then all other issues including breach of any of the provisions would not have much relevance in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in 1969 (2) SCC 187. Similarly, in a judgment reported in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352; 2009 AIR SCW 6305, it has been observed that such power cannot be exercised beyond a reasonable period. It has been observed thus:
"Having regard to the fact that the proceedings came to be initiated after delay of more than about three years and that the petitioner has changed his position, such belated proceedings and order cannot be sustained. The proceedings should have been initiated within a reasonable time inasmuch as undisputedly the notice under the Act was issued in 2005. The proceedings and the order are hit by the vice of delay."
19. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788 in the case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. had considered this aspect with reference to Page 22 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined the delay in exercise of such powers and the reasonable period. It has been observed as under:
"It must be fairly said that if the statute does not prescribe a time-limit for exercise of revisional powers, it does not mean that such powers can be exercised at any point of time, even if there is a breach of any provision which relates to a new tenure land. Rather, it should be exercised within a reasonable period of time; otherwise it would be unreasonable and arbitrary after a long lapse of time. It is settled law from various judgments of the Supreme Court that where a statutory provision for exercise of any suo motu power does not prescribe any limitation, the power must be exercised within a reasonable period of time even in the case of transaction which would be termed as void transaction."
20. Thus, the moot question is what could be considered to be "reasonable time" when the statute does not provide for any time-limit for exercise of such powers. The Division Bench of the High Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya (supra) has observed in paragraph 38 referring to an earlier judgment reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488:
"As observed in Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, 2002(1) SCC 134, it is "looking at all the circumstances of the case, a "reasonable time" under ordinary circumstances; as soon as circumstances will permit; so much time as it is necessary under the circumstances, conveniently to do what the contract requires should be done; some more protracted space than 'directly; such length of time as may fairly, and properly, and reasonable be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending circumstances; all these convey more or less the same idea".
Further, it has been observed, Page 23 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined "That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer (Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn., 2005"
21. That apart, the principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants also apply to the facts of the present case on all fours.''
8) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it prima facie appears that the proceedings, which pertain to the transactions undertaken by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner as well as the original vendor in the year 2004, came to be examined only in the year 2013 upon issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 122 of the Act. Thus, it is evident that such proceedings were initiated after an inordinate and unreasonable lapse of time. This Court is of the opinion that such belated initiation of proceedings is per se untenable in law. The same is clearly beyond the scope of a "reasonable period" as contemplated under settled legal principles governing the exercise of statutory powers. Therefore, solely on the ground of delay and laches, the proceedings initiated by the concerned authority deserve to be quashed and set aside, and the present petition merits consideration accordingly. This Court has also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case and has duly considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that, pursuant to the execution of the registered Page 24 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined sale deed, an application was preferred before the office of the Collector seeking regularization of the transaction under the provisions of Section 89 read with Section 45(B) of the Act. It further emerges from the record that, upon due consideration and appreciation of the documents and material placed on record, the competent authority, namely the Deputy Collector, Bhuj, had accorded sanction to the said transaction by issuing a certificate dated 06.02.2004. Thereafter, a subsequent application was also preferred before the authority, which came to be considered by the Deputy Collector, Bhuj, and vide order dated 20.02.2006, the said authority granted permission with certain terms and conditions and issued the requisite certificate with retrospective effect. Further, it prima facie appears that, at the time of granting such permissions and issuing the certificates, the authority concerned had taken into consideration all the relevant documents and material available on record in their true spirit and proper perspective. It further appears that the names of the original holders of the property were duly reflected, and thereafter, on the strength of the execution of the relevant deeds, the property came to be transferred in favour of the subsequent purchaser. Apparently, even prior to the execution of the sale deed between Bharatbhai Tank and the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, the rights and equities in respect of the property had undergone changes amongst various stakeholders. Therefore, in light of the observations recorded in the operative portion of the orders, it can reasonably be inferred that the Deputy Collector, after Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined considering and appreciating all the material on record, had passed the orders granting the requisite permissions with retrospective effect.
9) In view of the aforesaid, it becomes evident that, upon issuance of the certificates by the Deputy Collector, the transactions entered into between the parties were regularized in accordance with law. Once such regularization had taken place by the competent authority, the same could not have been reopened after a long period of time, more particularly in the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned advocate for the petitioner that, under the statutory provision of the Act, the powers to grant permission under Section 89 are vested in the Collector. However, it appears that, at the relevant point of time, considering the administrative workload, such powers had been duly delegated to the office of the Deputy Collector by way of appropriate notifications, circulars, or resolutions issued by the Government of Gujarat. Thus, in effect, the powers of the Collector were exercised by the Deputy Collector at thar relevant point of time, and the said position is not in dispute. Therefore, the orders passed by the Deputy Collector cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or authority.
9.1) Secondly, the certificate issued by the Deputy Collector has neither been cancelled nor declared illegal by any competent Page 26 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined authority till date. In the absence of any express judicial or administrative order setting aside the said certificate, no proceedings alleging breach of the provisions of the concerned section could have been initiated by the Mamlatdar by exercising powers under Section 122. It is a settled proposition of law that, within the hierarchical administrative structure, the Deputy Collector is superior in rank to the Mamlatdar. Consequently, the Mamlatdar lacks jurisdiction to examine or question the legality and validity of an order passed by the Deputy Collector. Therefore, initiation of proceedings under Section 122 by the Mamlatdar, in effect challenging entries mutated in the revenue record as far back as the year 2002, suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional error. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the said transactions were subsequently regularized with retrospective effect by the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Collector. It is also a well-settled principle of law that while powers are delegated to the Deputy Collector by the Collector, any order passed in exercise of such delegated authority stands on the same ground as that of the Collector and cannot be subjected to revision by the Collector himself. Any challenge to such an order must lie before a higher authority in accordance with law. From the record, it appears that the order passed by the Mamlatdar has already been taken into suo moto revision by the Collector. However, while doing so, the Collector has failed to consider that the powers exercised by the Deputy Collector were duly delegated by the Collector himself. In such circumstances, the Collector could not have exercised suo moto Page 27 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined revisional jurisdiction over the matter in disregard of the settled legal position. Therefore, the exercise of such power is without jurisdiction and is unsustainable.
10) Considering the above-stated totality of the facts of the matter, the very initiation of proceedings by the Mamlatdar through issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 122 is bad in the eye of law, particularly when the entries in question had already been regularized by a higher authority, namely the Deputy Collector. After due consideration and appreciation of the relevant documents and material on record, the Deputy Collector had issued the certificate, which remains valid. In the absence of its cancellation by a competent authority, no further proceedings could have been initiated. The impugned order is therefore, unjust, illegal, and contrary to the material available on record, and is not in consonance with settled principles of law. Moreover, the proceedings undertaken in suo moto revision and the order passed by the Special Secretary are also not in conformity with the statutory provisions and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The same deserve to be quashed and set aside.
11) Considering the aforesaid totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in initiation of the proceedings. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner had already applied for regularization, and the transactions were duly regularized by the Deputy Collector. In Page 28 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined such circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the concerned authority are prima facie illegal, erroneous, and perverse, and are liable to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present application.
12) Therefore, in view of the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the revenue authorities deserve to be quashed. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/ GANOT/ KUTCH/ 01/ 2017 and the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the learned Collector are hereby quashed and set aside and thereby the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT is hereby restored.
13) Rule is made absolute. Directed service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) GARVITA Page 29 of 29 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026