Gujarat High Court
Rajesh Vitthalbhai Patel vs Special Secretary(Appeals) on 23 August, 2018
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
C/SCA/19903/2016 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19903 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA Sd/-
=========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ? No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order No
made thereunder ?
==============================================================
RAJESH VITTHALBHAI PATEL
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY(APPEALS)
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5,6
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 23/08/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 300A of the Constitution of Page 1 of 8 C/SCA/19903/2016 JUDGMENT India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, for the prayers as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued for quashing and setting aside the order passed in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/ANAND/133/2014 by respondent No.1-Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, dated 19.07.2016 at Annexure-A and also the order passed in Revision Application No. Jaman/1/RTS/Su./Revi./14/1996/Vashi/5381 by respondent No.2-Collector, Anand dated 21.03.2014 on the ground stated in the memo of petition.
2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows:
2.1. The original owner of the land sold the land in question in the year 1991 to respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Therefore, the entry no.2586 was certified on 18.09.1992. Thereafter respondent Nos.3 and 4 conveyed by registered sale deed dated 16.03.2016 in favour of the petitioner for which the entry no.3684 has been made dated 16.12.2006. However, suo-motu proceedings came to be initiated on 21.01.2014 on the ground that transaction had taken place in 1991 was illegal as one of the persons was not agriculturist and therefore, the said entry and all subsequent entries are sought to be cancelled which Page 2 of 8 C/SCA/19903/2016 JUDGMENT led to filing of this present petition challenging the order passed by the authorities below.
3. Heard learned counsel Shri Hriday Buch for the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Manan Mehta for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Shri Hiren Modi for respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel Shri Buch referred to the background of the facts as well as the impugned orders at Annexures- A & B and submitted that exercise of suo-motu powers is beyond reasonable period and therefore, in light of the settled position by judicial pronouncements such power could not have been exercised and it cannot be sustained. In support of his submission he referred to and relied upon the relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788. Similarly, he submitted that in any case the land was permitted to be converted into NA in the year 1994 and therefore, it has been purchased. He submitted that the as petitioner is a bonafide purchaser, he could not have been questioned for such issues after such a long lapse of time merely because the transaction in 1991 is said to be defective. He submitted that after the land was converted into NA, it has been purchased by Page 3 of 8 C/SCA/19903/2016 JUDGMENT a registered sale deed by the petitioner for which the entries was certified in the year 2016, now cannot be questioned in the year 2014 and therefore, the present petition may be allowed.
5. Learned AGP Shri Manan Mehta referred to the impugned order at Annexure-A and tried to submit that as the very basis of the foundation of the transaction was bad, which has been struck down the subsequent entries and the subsequent transaction made cannot be accepted. He submitted that as per the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, it has been noticed that such power could be exercised under the Land Revenue Code and therefore, the present petition may not be entertained. He has also referred to the RTS proceedings and the order passed by respondent No.2-Collector and submitted that when it was found that the NA permission, which was granted contrary to the policy of the Government without verification, it has been sought to be cancelled and therefore, in exercise of powers under the Tenancy Act, the order has been passed and therefore, the petitioner cannot make grievance. He submitted that the petitioner as a subsequent purchaser could not get any right when the order has been passed contrary to the statutory provision and therefore, the present petition may not be Page 4 of 8 C/SCA/19903/2016 JUDGMENT entertained.
6. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition deserves consideration.
7. As could be seen from the background of the facts, the transaction which has taken place in 1991, is sought to be taken in suo-motu exercise of power in the year 2014 by initiating the proceedings on the ground that the transaction, which had taken place in 1991, which was invalid as one of the vendor was not agriculturist. However, the fact remains as stated above that the land in question has changed the hands and there were subsequent transaction including the purchase of land in question by a registered sale deed by the petitioner as a bonafide purchaser. It is also not in question that the land has been converted into NA in 1994. Therefore, assuming that there was some misconception by the officer, who granted such NA permission, it could have been taken in review or reconsider within a reasonable time to correct the mistake. However, such a mistake committed by the officer in 1994 cannot be permitted to be reviewed or examined in exercise of suo-motu powers in the year 2014.
Page 5 of 8
C/SCA/19903/2016 JUDGMENT 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broad
guidelines with regard to the aspect of reasonable period for exercise of such suo-motu powers. It has been time and again held that exercise of power beyond a reasonable period would not be justified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Joseph Severance & Ors. V/s. Benny Mathew & Ors. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 667, wherein it has been observed that:
"19. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. It is clear from various judgments of the Supreme Court that where a statutory provisions for exercise of any suo motu powers of revision does not prescribe any limitation, the powers must be exercised within a reasonable period of time even in the case of transaction which would be termed as void transaction"
Therefore, right from the judgment in case of State of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 consistent view has been taken that there is no justification for exercise of such powers beyond a reasonable time. Again, what could be considered to be "reasonable period" would depend upon the facts of the case and in any case, such a long period cannot be said to be a "reasonable period". Similar view has also expressed by this Court in case of Bharatkumar C. Jinwala V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in 2015 (1) GLR 576.
9. This Court has observed in case of Vijayrajsinhji Page 6 of 8 C/SCA/19903/2016 JUDGMENT Virbhadrasinhji Gohil & Anr. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2015 (1) GLR 444 that:
"Again according to the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, 3rd Edn. 2005, 'reasonable time' has been discussed and it has been clearly observed :
"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."
"Reasonable time" is defined to be so much time as is necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid position enunciated by judicial pronouncement, the exercise of suo-motu powers cannot be sustained and therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Moreover, as stated the land in question was converted into NA in 1994 and therefore, there is no justification for exercise of suo-motu power at belated stage.
11. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. Prayer in terms of para-7(B) is granted. The impugned order passed Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/ANAND/133/2014 by respondent No.1-Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, dated 19.07.2016 at Annexure-A and also the order passed in Revision Application No. Jaman/1/RTS/Su./Revi./14/1996/Vashi/5381 by respondent No.2-Collector, Anand dated 21.03.2014 at Annexure-B are Page 7 of 8 C/SCA/19903/2016 JUDGMENT hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) ABHISHEK Page 8 of 8