Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It may be noted that the proceedings under Section 75 of the Ordinance' 1949, were initiated with respect to the sale deeds executed as early as in the years 1975, 1987, 1989, 1990 onwards. From the chart prepared by Ms. Manisha Luvkumar, the learned Additional Advocate General in consultation with the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be noted that with respect to the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners or their predecessor in interest, mutation entries were made and certified. For instance, in Writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 19405 of 2016, the Sale deed is dated 24.06.1975, the mutation entry was certified on 08.01.1986 and the show-cause notice under Section 75 of the Ordinance' 1949 was sent by the Deputy Collector on 26.07.1990. The Deputy Collector, thereafter, passed the order dated 24.09.1990 declaring the sale transaction in favour of the father of the original petitioner as not legal. The Collector has upheld the order of the Deputy Collector vide order dated 19.03.1991 and in revision, while passing the order dated 05.06.1991, the SSRD had directed to apply for the Certificate of agriculturist from the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector had not considered the application for grant of agriculturist certificate by passing the order dated 13.07.1992. The Collector further passed the order dated 25.09.1992 confirming the same. The SSRD, in its order dated 29.08.2016 in revision, had held that the original purchaser NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1825/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2024 undefined was an Ex-army man and under Section 54 of the Ordinance' 1949, he was required to produce evidence establishing his status as an agriculturst or a labourer.

It is reiterated that the copy of the chart has been supplied to the learned counsels appearing for the original petitioners and they have verified the same.

10. Having gone through the reasons for initiation of the proceedings by the Collector shown in the chart, at least one thing is clear that in almost all the matters, the proceedings for eviction were initiated at least beyond the period of 6 years of the date of certification of the mutation entry and in few with respect to the sale deeds of the year 1990 and 1991, where mutation entries were certified in the year 1990 and 1993, the show-cause notice was issued in the year 2012 and 2013.

40. With the aid of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra34, it was argued that the limitation would start running from the date of discovery of the fraud or suppression of material or relevant facts or omission thereof. In the instant case, the mutation entries were made by the competent revenue authorities after due perusal of the sale deeds and notice to the party concerned and further the mutation entries were certified after due verification, it, thus, cannot be assumed that the State was not aware of execution of sale deeds, alleged breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance' 1949.

47. With the reading of Sections 54 and 75 of the Ordinance' 1949, it was urged that even the object of these two provisions is to save the agricultural lands in the hands of peasants and requirement of permission in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Collector for effecting sale or transfer by any other mode is there so as to ensure that no agricultural land is occupied unauthorisedly by any person and no one can continue to be in wrongful possession of the agricultural lands covered by the Ordinance' 1949. The transactions, in the instant bunch of Writ petitions, are valid transactions executed by the land owners and there are no allegations of fraud, nor the sale deeds have been termed as surreptitious. There are long drawn entries in the name of the land owners, which have been certified. The proceedings drawn by the State authorities suffer from the vice of delay and the delay in drawing the proceedings to delete the long drawn mutation entries by entering the name of the State for summary eviction of the land of the purchasers/land holders, is inordinate and unexplained. Even the Letters Patent Appeals are suffering from the delay of more than 253 days. Though the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeals have been condoned by this Court, but that would not mean that the eviction proceedings were initiated within a reasonable time. The decisions of the Apex Court and the High Court in Patel Raghav Natha1, Vipul Khodidas Pobaru vs. State of Gujarat 24 confirming the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda vs. State of Special leave to Appeal No.29190 of 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1825/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2024 undefined Gujarat25, Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District 21, State of Rajasthan vs. D.R. Laxmi26, Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport 27, Delhi Development Authority v. Ram Prakash 28, Vallabhbhai Rambhai vs. State of Gujarat 29, State of Gujarat vs. Amrutlal Hansrajbhai30, Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera vs. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State31, Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah vs. State of Gujarat 32, Gulabbhai Ravjibhai Patel vs. Badriprasad Vithalrao Bende33, Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya2 have been placed before us to submit that the courts have refused to hold the transactions invalid or void after expiry of reasonable period of time as per the law laid down in Patel Raghav Natha1.