Gujarat High Court
Thakorbhai Tribhovandas Rao And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 12 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1995)1GLR636
JUDGMENT R.K. Abichandani, J.
1. The petitioners challenge the notice issued by the Deputy Collector, Kheda on 4-9-1981 in Tenancy Revision Nos. 183 to 224 and seek direction on the Collector not to take the matters enumerated at Annexure "A", in Revision under Section 76A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. It appears that in an inquiry under Section 32-G of the Act, the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. by his order dated 30-12-1971 passed in Tenancy Case No. Govindpura/80 in the case of respondent No. 3 held that he was a tenant of the land in dispute. Similar decision was taken in respect of respondents Nos. 4 to 49 and this aspect has not been disputed before this Court. The petitioners have, after the matter was decided by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. under Section 32-G in respect of respondents Nos. 3 to 49 as far back as in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973 suddenly received a notice calling upon them to appear before the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. as the proceedings were taken up in Revision pursuant to the reference made by the State Government under Section 76-A of the Act in respect of the order which was passed by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. in the inquiry under Section 32-G pertaining to respondents Nos. 3 to 49. A copy of such notice is annexed as Annexure 'B/l'. The notice was sent by the Deputy Collector, Kheda. Admittedly, similar notices were issued in respect of other respondents-tenants. It appears that the petitioners made an application dated 2-7-1981 to the Revenue Department pointing out that the matter could not be taken up in Revision under Section 76-A since the period of one year from the date of the order of Mamlatdar and A.L.T. had elapsed. In response to that application dated 2-7-1981, the Government sent a cryptic reply dated 21-10-1981 that there was no reason to review the decision of the Government taken on 26-11-1979 for taking the order of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. in Revision under Section 76-A of the Act.
3. Undisputedly, the orders of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Matar which are sought to be revised under Section 76-A were passed in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973. The petitioners have received the notice to appear before the Deputy Collector only in September, 1981. The provisions of Section 76A read as under:
76A. Where no appeal has been filed within the period provided for it the Collector may, svo 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 proceeding of any 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.
It will be seen that no record can be called for by the Collector after the expiry of one year from the date of the order made by the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Mamlatdar or Tribunal. The proviso to Section 76A would be applicable even in a case where a Reference is made by the State Government requiring the Collector to call for the record and proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order. The limitation prescribed by the proviso for the exercise of the revisional powers beyond the expiry of one year from the date of the order is clear and explicit and the Collector will have no revisional power to be exercised beyond the period of one year prescribed by the proviso to Section 76A. Therefore, the only contention which was raised on behalf of the petitioners against the validity of the impugned notices belatedly seeking to take up the orders of Mamlatdar and A.L.T passed in 1971, 1972, 1973 for Revision under Section 76A of the Act derserves to be accepted. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had hardly any answer to the mandatory provisions of the proviso to Section 76A prescribing the time-limit during which the power could be exercised for revising the orders of the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal.
4. This petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The impugned notices issued by the Deputy Collector, Kheda in Tenancy Revision Nos. 183 to 224 dated 4-9-1981 seeking to revise under Section 76A, the orders made by the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal in 1971, 1972 and 1973 are hereby set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.