Gujarat High Court
Manibhai Ramjibhai Patel Decd Through ... vs The Collector, Tapi on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 13/01/2026
Pronounced On : 22/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17532 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANIBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL DECD THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.
Versus
THE COLLECTOR, TAPI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. SURBHI BHATI, LD. ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No.3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8,2.9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the State-respondents.
2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs;
"(A) To set aside the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department in Revision Application/MVV/HKP/TP/18/2015, Annexure-C herein;Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined (B) To stay the execution and implementation of the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department in Revision Application/MVV/HKP/TP/18/2015, Annexure-C herein, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(C) To pass any other order that may be deemed fit in the interest of justice"
3. Facts, giving rise to the filing of the present application, may be summarized as under;
3.1 The land bearing Block No.4/1/B H-00-1208 sq. meter situated in Vyara Taluka, District: Tapi was belonging to Thaguyabhai Javalyabhai Gamit (deceased), who executed a will on 24.09.1990 during his life time regarding the said land.
3.2 After the execution of the aforesaid will, by executing a second will on 06.06.1991 during his life time, the deceased appointed the deceased writ applicant as his heir after his death.
3.3 On the basis of his rights of heirship, the deceased writ applicant filed Special Civil Suit No.46 of 2002 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Bardoli for a declaration that the he is the lawful owner of the said land under the will executed on 06.06.1991 and had prayed that the respondent No.2 be restrained from creating any obstruction in the ownership and physical possession of the said land of the deceased writ applicant.
3.4 During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, a compromise Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined was arrived at between the parties in the presence of their advocates on 22.07.2002, whereby the ownership rights of the deceased writ applicant under the said will was admitted. The learned Judge at Bardoli decreed the said suit on 13.09.2002 accepting the said compromise arrived at between the parties.
3.5 Pursuant to the said decree, an entry also came to be mutated in the revenue record on 18.03.2009 being Mutation Entry No.5433, which was subsequently certified on 15.09.2009, and accordingly, the village register was corrected.
3.6 Thereafter, the respondent No.1, Collector-Tapi initiated suo motu proceedings being Revision Case No.52 of 2010 in respect of the said mutation entry, and later passed an order dated 14.10.2011 that in breach of Section 73AA (4) of the Land Revenue Code, the said land is transferred to a non-tribal person and hence the said land should be confiscated, devoid of any encumbrance in favour of the government and ordered to cancel the Mutation Entry No.5433. The Collector further imposed fine of Rs.7,06,23,540/- upon the deceased writ applicant due to breach of Section 73AA(7) of the Code.
3.7 The deceased writ applicant carried the aforesaid order in revision before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (for short 'SSRD') by filing Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/TP/3/2011, who by an order dated 12.09.2012, allowed the revision application and remanded the matter back to the Collector, Tapi for fresh consideration.
Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined 3.8 The respondent No.1-Collector, Tapi, after re-hearing the parties on remand, passed an order dated 12.02.2015 in RTS/Revision/Remand Case No.9/2013 and confirmed the order dated 19.10.2011 imposing penalty upon the deceased writ applicant, with a further direction to the Mamlatdar & Krushipanch as well as the Deputy Collector to initiate action under Section 84(C) as well as under Section 67 against the writ applicant.
3.9 The deceased writ applicant challenged the aforesaid order dated 12.02.2015 before the SSRD by filing Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/TP/18/2015, who by an order dated 13.07.2016 dismissed the revision of the deceased writ applicant, and confirmed the order of the Collector, Tapi dated 12.02.2015.
3.10 Being aggrieved, the deceased writ applicant has preferred the present application.
4. Learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi appearing for the writ applicants has reiterated the facts narrated herein above and submitted that the impugned order passed by the SSRD, confirming the order of the Collector, is unjust, arbitrary, perverse, illegal, unreasonable and contrary to law, and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that initially, the subject land was in two parts, being Revenue Survey Nos.1843 and 1844/A, which was subsequently consolidated and given Revenue Survey No.1843, admeasuring 3018.10 square meters. The subject land was standing in the name of deceased respondent No.2-Thagiyabhai Javalyabhai Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined Gamit. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that the said Thagiyabhai Javalyabhai Gamit, during his life time, executed a will dated 06.06.1991, by bequeathing the subject land in favour of Manibhai Ramjibhai Patel, i.e, the deceased writ applicant. Thereafter, the said Thagiyabhai Javalyabhai Gamit died on 13.12.1991, pursuant to which, succession entry No.3632 dated 04.01.1992 was posted in favour of his legal heirs, which was subsequently certified. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that on 06.04.1998, a family partition took place, and the subject land came in the share of Natwarbhai Thagiyabhai and Jayantibhai Thagiyabhai, and an entry to that effect also came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No.4366 dated 06.04.1998, which also came to be certified subsequently.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that thereafter on 28.08.2002, the owners of the subject land submitted an application before the competent authority for conversation of the subject land from agricultural land to non- agricultural land, admeasuring 2125 square meters. The said application was entertained and the land was converted into non-agricultural land. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that later, the deceased writ applicant instituted a suit being Special Civil Suit No.46 of 2002 before the competent civil court at Bardoli, seeking decree of declaration, declaring him to be the lawful owner of the suit property and the defendants may be restrained from interfering with his possession. The said suit was compromised, and accordingly, a decree was drawn in favour Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined of the deceased writ applicant. Pursuant to the said decree and the will executed by late Thagiyabhai Gamit, an entry being Entry No.79 dated 06.09.2002 also came to be mutated in the revenue record in the name of the deceased writ applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that, thereafter, the deceased writ applicant applied for Raja Chiththi to the Vyara Nagar Palika for doing the construction work upon the said land, which was also granted by the Vyara Nagar Palika, and after obtaining all the necessary permissions from the competent authorities, shops and flats were constructed upon the said land, and sale deeds were also executed in favour of the respective purchasers, on the basis of which, their names had also been entered in the property card of Survey No.1843.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that in view of the decree drawn by the civil court, pencil entry No.5433 dated 18.03.2009 was posted in the revenue record in relation to the land of Survey No.4/B/A, which came to be certified by the Mamlatdar on 15.09.2009. He has also submitted that, however, in the year 2010, Collector, Tapi initiated suo motu proceedings against mutation of Entry No.5433 dated 18.03.2009 vide Revision Application No.52 of 2010, and by its order dated 14.10.2011, cancelled the Entry No.5433, and also imposed a fine of Rs.7,06,23,540/- for the alleged breach of Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that the impugned order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the SSRD, confirming the order dated 12.02.2015 is absolutely erroneous Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined one, as the Collector, Tapi, in the remand proceedings, has completely ignored the issues ordered to be considered by the SSRD in its earlier order dated 12.09.2012, while remanding the matter back to the Collector, Tapi. He submits that the Collector has failed to consider that the Collector was required to consider and decide the issue afresh after joining the purchasers of the shops and flats being the necessary and interested parties, as directed by the SSRD in its order dated 12.09.2012, however, despite the same, the Collector did not pay any heed to the directions issued by the SSRD, and without joining the purchasers of the flats and shops in the remand proceedings, reiterated the reasons assigned in its earlier order and again ordered to cancel the mutation entry without assigning any cogent and fresh reasons, which was also subsequently confirmed by the SSRD without giving any independent findings, as also without verifying whether the direction issued by it, was complied with or not, though the said aspect was brought to the notice of the SSRD by the deceased writ applicant by filing written statement. Moreover, no notice for breach of provisions of Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code has been given to the writ applicants. He has further submitted that even third party rights have also been created on the basis of registered sale deeds in favour of the respective purchasers. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has also submitted that there is a delay of eight years in initiating action under Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code from the date of entering the name of the deceased writ applicant in the revenue record. He has further submitted that the Entry No.5433 was effected in the revenue record on the basis of the Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined decree drawn by the competent civil court, and no appeal or revision is filed against the said decree, and thus the said decree has attained finality, and as such, both the revenue authorities have ignored the decree passed by the competent civil court.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that it is a settled law that any decision of the revenue authority is subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings, if any instituted by the either side, however, here in the case on hand, the competent civil court has already upheld the validity of the will executed by deceased Thagiyabhai in favour of the deceased writ applicant on 06.06.1991, holding the deceased writ applicant as the lawful owner of the subject land. He has also submitted that not only the writ applicants, but their forefather were also an agriculturists since many decades, and as such, there is no violation or breach of any of the provisions of the Tenancy Act or the Land Revenue Code. He has further submitted that as per the statute, the Collector cannot exercise suo motu power after a lapse of more than a year and a half. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that many years ago, after obtaining the permission of the Vyara Nagar Palika, number of shops and flats were constructed on the subject land, and also sold out, however, no notice or intimation before passing the impugned order is served upon or given to any of the purchasers of the shops and flats, and they have not been even joined as the parties. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that suo motu proceedings were initiated under Section 211 of the Land Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined Revenue Code, however, the order was passed under Section 73AA, and there was no proceedings initiated under Section 73AA by the Collector, Tapi nor any opportunity to represent was given to the writ applicant, and as such, the Collector does not have any power to pass any order taking resort to Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code. The Collector has also no power to direct the Mamlatdar & Krushipanch to take action under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He has also submitted that the deceased writ applicant cannot be held responsible for the deceased executing his will and therefore no order can be passed against him to deposit Rs.7,06,23, 540/- being thrice the amount of Jantri, and the authority has no jurisdiction to pass such order.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that since back, multi storeyed building was constructed and shops and flats were sold out. All necessary permissions were obtained, and no notice was ever issued to such shop and flat owners, and multiplicity of proceedings are likely to rise if any order is passed without hearing them. He has also submitted that in case of breach of Section 73AA, the Deputy Collector has the power to initiate action, and after the Deputy Collector finds that there is a breach of Section 73AA, then only Mutation Entry No.5433 can be ordered to be cancelled, and not otherwise. Moreover, the Collector has raised an issue of title by taking the case in suo motu revision, and as per the settled law, revenue authority has no jurisdiction and authority to decide the issue of title in respect of any land, and it is only the court of law, who can decide the title of the land. In the case Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined on hand, the civil court has decreed the suit in favour of the deceased writ applicant in view of the settlement, which attained finality. Thus, by no way, Mutation Entry No.5433 can be set aside by initiating suo motu proceedings by the Collector. He has, therefore, submitted that the entire suo motu proceedings initiated by the Collector is illegal and to be set aside. He has also submitted that the revenue authority cannot seat as an appellate court over the decree passed by the competent civil court. To buttress his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has relied upon the following case laws;
(i) In the case of Vasanjibhai Gokalbhai Patel vs. Deputy Collector, Songadh,1998 (3) GLR 2139;
(ii) in the case of Dineshbhai Maganbhai Mistry vs. State of Gujarat, Thr. Secretary, 2013 (0) GUJHC 26696;
(iii) In the case of Praimaben Gopalda Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 (3) GLH 430;
(iv) In the case of Sonkiben Mankabhai Vasava vs. Ishwarbhai Nagjibhai Talpadakoli (Decd) Thr. Heirs, 2014 (0) GUJHC 6852;
10. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi prays that there being merit in the present application, the same be allowed, and the relief, as prayed for, be granted.
11. On the other hand, the present application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati appearing for the State-respondents. She has submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined been committed by the revenue authorities in passing the impugned orders. She has further submitted that none of the fundamental rights of the writ applicants have been violated because of any action or inaction on the part of the respondent. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati has also submitted that the subject land was originally belonged to one Thagyabhai Gamit, and upon death of Thagyabhai Gamit, names of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No.3632 dated 04.01.1992. She has further submitted that it is the case of the writ applicants that during the life time of Thgyabhai Gamit, he executed a will in favour of deceased writ applicant on 06.06.1991, on the basis of which, the deceased writ applicant filed Civil Suit No.46 of 2002, seeking declaration, declaring him to be the lawful owner on the basis of aforesaid will. In the said suit, since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, the civil court has passed decree in the suit by recording the settlement between the parties. She has further submitted that, it is pertinent to note at this stage that, the civil court did not decide the suit on merits, but upon compromise between the parties, the suit was decreed in favour of the deceased writ applicant, and pursuant to the said decree, Mutation Entry No.5433 was mutated in the revenue record, which also came to be certified subsequently. She has further submitted that, it came to the knowledge of the revenue authorities that the subject land is a restricted tenure land under Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, and as such, the same cannot be transferred without the prior permission to any non-tribal person or tribal person, and the subject land came to be transferred in the name of the Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined deceased writ applicant by virtue of a will without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority, and as such, there is a breach of Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, and as such, the power exercised by the Collector are within reasonable period of time, and is not barred by delay and latches. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati has further submitted that as per Section 73AA(4) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the tribal occupant cannot transfer the land in favour of non- tribal or tribal without prior permission of the Collector, and in the case on hand, the transfer by virtue of a will is without obtaining sanction of the Collector, and the writ applicants could not be able to produce any sanction order by the Collector, and as such, the same is in contravention of Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. She has also submitted that when the transfer of restricted tenure land is invalid or illegal in the eye of law, it cannot be validated due to passage of time, and therefore, the powers exercised by the Collector, Tapi by taking suo motu revision is within reasonable period of time as the transfer in the present case is in clear breach of Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, and as such, the Mutation Entry No.5433 was rightly cancelled by the Collector, and then confirmed by the SSRD.
12. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned AGP Ms. Bhati prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected.
13. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2.1 to 2.9.
Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined
14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, and perused the record.
15. It appears from the record that the subject land was running in the name of one Thagiyabhai Javlayabhai Gamit, who, during his life time, executed a will in favour of the deceased writ applicant in 1991, appointing him as his heir after his death. It further appears from the record that the said will has never been disputed by any of the heirs of deceased applicant-Manibhai Ramjibhai Patel. It also appears from the record that the said will was executed in the year 1991, and in the year 1998, a family partition took place between the heirs of deceased applicant-Manibhai Ramjibhai Patel, wherein the subject land came in the share of Natwarbhai Thagyabhai and Jayantibhai Thagyabhai, and an entry to that effect also came to be mutated in the revenue record. It further appears from the record that, after getting the share of the subject land, Natwarbhai and Jayantibhai had applied for conversion of the subject land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land. At the same time, the deceased applicant-Manibhai Ramjibhai Patel also filed a Special Suit before the competent civil court, to declare him as the lawful owner of the subject land on the basis of the will executed by Thagiyabhai Javlaybhai Gamit. It also appears that during the pendency of the suit, the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement, and due to the said compromise, the decree was drawn in favour of the deceased applicant, which has never been challenged, and has attained finality, and a pencil entry to that effect had also been made in the revenue record being Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined Entry No.5433 in favour of the deceased writ applicant.
16. Thus, it clearly appears from the record that the subject land had already been converted into non-agricultural land by the heirs of the original owners, and in view of the decree drawn by the civil court, an entry in favour of the deceased applicant was mutated in the revenue record, showing him to be the lawful owner of the subject land. Thus, it appears that the land had already been converted into non-agricultural land prior to the passing of the decree by the competent civil court, decreeing the deceased applicant to be the lawful owner of the subject land, and therefore, there is no question of obtaining any permission from any competent authority, as the same was transferred on the basis of the decree drawn by a court of law. Moreover, neither the will nor the decree has been challenged by any of the heirs of the private respondents, nor by any of the government authorities. It also appears from the record that after getting the decree from the civil court, the writ applicant got all the necessary permissions from the competent authorities for carrying out the construction work upon the subject land, and none of the sanctioning authorities, at any point of time, had raised any objection about the title of the land as well as the ownership right of the writ applicant. The construction work had also been started, and the units were also sold out to the respective buyers, and it is brought to the notice of the court that none of the purchasers have been joined as the parties to the proceedings, though they were the necessary parties.
17. I have also gone through the orders passed by the Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined revenue authorities, and it appears from the same that, while remanding the matter back to the Mamlatdar, the SSRD had made specific observations in its order that the Mamlatdar shall decide the issue afresh after joining the purchasers of the flats and shops as the parties, however, the Mamlatdar did not obey the direction issued by the SSRD, and without joining the purchasers, as directed by the SSRD, passed the order by reiterating the reasons assigned in its earlier order, and the SSRD also without verifying the said aspect, confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar, and as such, in my considered opinion, the impugned orders passed by both the revenue authorities suffer from perversity and various legal infirmities, and as such, deserve to be quashed and set aside.
18. The most crucial and significant aspect, which needs to be taken note of is that there is a delay of almost eight years in initiating the suo motu proceedings by the Collector, after the mutation of the name of the deceased writ applicant in the revenue record. 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. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 353; 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 Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined and that the petitioner is not guilty of fraud or suppression, the impugned proceedings and order cannot be said to have been initiated within 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. Moreover, 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. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. had considered this aspect with reference to 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 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 Section 43 of the Act, which is a provision which relates to a new tenure land, rather it should be exercised within a reasonable period of time. 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 provision 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."
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 para 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 Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17532/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 undefined 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, "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. For the foregoing reasons, and having regard to the aforesaid settled position of law, the present writ application deserve to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the Collector, Tapi, dated 12.02.2015 in RTS/Revision/Remand Case No.9/2013 as well as the order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, dated 13.07.2016 in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/TP/18/2015, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside, and matter is remanded back to the Collector, Tapi to take fresh de novo decision, after joining the purchasers of the flats and shops as the parties, and then providing adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) VAHID Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 29 21:05:05 IST 2026