Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(B) Whether while exercising powers under Rule 108 of the Rules, can the revenue authorities pass an order of returning possession of the land for breach of provisions of any other enactments.

8. Facts of the case indicate that it is the case of the parties that the petitioner became the owner of the land by virtue of bequeathment through a Will of Manjubhai Pawar which he executed in favour of the petitioner on 25.07.1995. Based on this Will, the agricultural land was recorded in the revenue entries by mutating the name of the petitioner vide Mutation Entry No. 288 dated 16.02.1998. 23 years after the mutation entry continued to hold the field, based on an application in the year 2018, Suo Motu powers were exercised by the District Collector and the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 was passed which was so confirmed by the SSRD by his order dated 04.03.2020. 8.1 It is no longer in dispute by several decisions of this court that exercise of powers of revision after a period of almost two decades cannot be said to be in exercise of powers within a reasonable time. It will be in the fitness of things to refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Vitthalbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10171 of 2008 dated 08.07.2016, wherein, this Court held as under:

12.In the case of Kanuben daughter of Jaysinh(supra), this Court has observed in para 5 and 6 as under:

"5. So far as the point of delay in taking suo motu action is concerned, undisputed facts are that, the land was purchased by the petitioners on 481990. Mutation Entry No. 4617 was made in the name of the petitioners on 581990. Thereafter, necessary verification was made and the mutation entry was certified on 29121990. On 2281991, the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department instructed the Deputy Collector for initiating suo motu proceedings in revision for cancellation of the entry. Thus, from the date of the mutation entry, namely, from 581990, the instruction given by the Chief Secretary on 2281991 was beyond period of one year. For taking suo motu action in review, no time is prescribed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code but, the order Annexure- 'A' shows that, as a result of suo motu action initiated after expiry of one year of mutation entry, the same was cancelled by order dated 551992. Thus, cancellation was effected after a period of about two years. It was definite case of the petitioners that such action could not be taken after expiry of reasonable period.

13.Even otherwise, now it is well settled that suo moto powers are required to be exercised within reasonable time. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued after a period of approximately three years and therefore only on this ground, the impugned order passed by the respondent Collector is required to be set aside.

14.At this stage, it is also required to be noted that in the aforesaid decision, this Court has observed in para 14 as under:

"...The validity of the sale transaction is to be decided under the Bombay Tenancy Act, whereas correctness of mutation entry is to be determined under RTS proceedings. So far as RTS proceedings are concerned ,it is well settled that the entries made in the revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. Such mutations have to follow either the documents of title or the orders passed by competent authorities under special enactments. Independently, the Revenue Authorities, as mentioned inRule108 framed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, can not pass orders for cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transaction recorded in the entry is against the provisions of a particular enactment. Whether the transaction is valid or not has to be examined by the competent authority under the particular enactment by following the procedure prescribed therein and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties likely to be affected by any order that may be passed. Provision for summary eviction is to be found under sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, whereas sec. 84(A)of the said Act relates to validation of transfer made before the appointed day .sec. 84(C) provides for holding inquiry by Mamlatdar where he has reasons to believe that transfer or acquisition has become invalid under any provision of this Act. Prohibition of transfer of land to nonagriculturist is contained in sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and the effect of transfer in contravention of secs. 63 and64 is dealt with under sec. 84(A) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. This exercise could be done by the authorities empowered to act under the Bombay Tenancy Act but, the revenue authorities can not undertake this exercise while deciding the mutation matter in RTS proceeding or deciding revision under sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and can not determine the validity of sale transaction. To someextent, where the facts were similar in EVERGREEN APARTMENT v. SPECIAL SECRETARY 1991(1) GLR 113, it was held that power conferred under one enactment can not be exercised while dealing with a question under another enactment, especially so when Revenue Officers are empowered to act under various enactments."

9. There is also substance in the argument on behalf of the petitioners that while exercising the powers under Rule 108 of the Rules, while considering the question with regard to the mutation entry, the authority has no power and/or jurisdiction to impose the penalty for breach of the provisions of any other enactment and the authority has also no jurisdiction to pass an order with regard to returning the possession. Ordinarily, when a transfer of property takes place by a registered document, an Entry is effected in the Revenue records and such entries are certified subsequently. If there is any dispute, then the suo motu powers can be exercised by the State Government under sub rule (6) of Rule 108 of the Rules and the entire enquiry under revisional power has to proceed under the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and not under any other enactments like The Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, The Bombay Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, or Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is well settled that the Entries made in the Revenue records have primarily a fiscal value and they do not create any title. As held by the aforesaid two Judgments, such mutations have to follow either document of title or order passed by the competent authorities under special enactment. Independently, the Revenue authorities cannot pass orders of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transactions recorded in the entries are against the provisions of particular enactment. Similarly, the Revenue authorities also while exercising the power under Rule 108 of the Rules cannot pass an order with regard to imposing the penalty and/or returning possession of the land in question for breach of the provisions of any other above said enactments and in the present case Section9 of the said Act. Under thecircumstances, the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, dated 20th August 1988 in cancelling the Entry No. 1729 dated 13thMarch 1987 certified on 2.5.1987 andconfirmed by the Collector, Ahmedabad, by his judgment and order dated 30th December1988 passed in Appeal No. 68 of 1989, and further confirmed by the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, by his judgment and order dated 21.9.1993 passed in Revenue Application No. 14 of 1992, requires to be quashed and set aside and are hereby quashed and set aside, restoring the Entry No. 1729 dated 13th March 1987 certified on 2.5.1987 with regard to land bearing Plot No. 431 situate at Village Kujad, Taluka - Dascroi. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.