Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.4 It is submitted that the revision application was filed by the private respondents before the SSRD who, passed the order dated 16.8.2017 without appreciating the fact that challenge to the entry, without any explanation, could not have been entertained. It is submitted that the revision has been allowed by passing an order ex parte. It is submitted that the Collector and the Deputy Collector have dismissed the matter since the challenge was made after long lapse of 16 years by coming to the conclusion that the proceedings are barred by the limitation and once it is held that it is time barred, C/SCA/18273/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/03/2022 the SSRD, could not have gone into the merits of the matter. It is submitted that the observation of SSRD that the order is void; however, it has lost sight of the fact that void order is required to be set aside. The basis adopted by the SSRD that since it is a void order, there is no question of limitation, is erroneous. It is submitted that the principle laid down in the judgments have not been applied and the reasoning that limitation or doctrine of reasonable time would not apply to the void orders, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled principle.

5.17 It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that both the Collector and Deputy Collector, have dismissed the matter since the issue was being agitated after a long lapse of 16 years and the authorities concerned, have come to the conclusion that the proceedings are barred by limitation. Once it is held that the proceedings are time barred, there is no question of going into C/SCA/18273/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/03/2022 the merits of the matter. It is also submitted that the SSRD, has committed an error in relying upon the judgments which are no longer a good law in view of the judgment in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar v. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein, in paragraph 6.3, reference has been made of both the judgments referred to by the SSRD namely judgment in the case of Koli Nagjibhai Varjan v. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (1) GLR 14 and judgment in the case of Patel Jividas Trikamdas & Ors. v. Collector & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) GLR 688. It is submitted that it has been clearly held that even a void order is required to be set aside and therefore, the sole reasoning of the SSRD that it is a void order and therefore, there arises no question of invoking the limitation or doctrine of reasonable time, is based on overruled judgments. The order of the SSRD, is without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled principle and it committed an error in entering into the merits and the question of title, which otherwise, was not within the scope and purview of the SSRD in the RTS proceeding. It is therefore urged that the order of the SSRD be quashed and set aside and the order dated 5.9.2015 passed by the Collector and order dated 24.7.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, be confirmed.

6. On the other hand, Ms Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Deputy Collector and Collector, have rejected the revision application. SSRD allowed the revision on the ground that the entry was null and void. It is submitted that it is clear from the record that Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore, was the sole owner and the petitioner taking advantage of the so called partition got the entry no.7590 mutated in the revenue record. When the order itself is null and void, the delay will not come in the way and therefore, SSRD rightly entertained the revision filed by the private respondents. The said aspect, is clearly observed in the order and therefore, the order is just and proper. Considering the facts of the case, Bhalaji Sadaji Thakore was the only owner and the transaction being void, no limitation can apply C/SCA/18273/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/03/2022 and no error can be said to have been committed by SSRD in passing the order dated 16.8.2017. It is urged that the petition does not require to be entertained.

18. SSRD, allowed the revision application and while doing so, as discussed hereinabove, SSRD, has observed that the entry has been certified illegally in favour of third party; however, SSRD, has lost sight of the fact that entries in the revenue record are only for the fiscal purpose and do not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person concerned. It has been observed that the entry is illegally certified; however, the said observation in the order has not been substantiated as to breach or illegality has been committed of which provisions of the Code. So far as the aspect of petitioner being khedut khatedar is concerned, SSRD, while examining the entry, could not have determined the status of the petitioner as it was not within his jurisdiction to determine the status in RTS proceedings. SSRD, has also observed that the document/transaction is liable for stamp duty; however, when SSRD was exercising the powers under the Code, it was legally impermissible to it to have concluded that the transaction was liable to the payment of stamp duty. If at all, the SSRD, was of the opinion that the transaction is liable for stamp duty, it ought to have referred the matter to the concerned authority but could not, have concluded that the transaction of the partition, is in breach of the provisions of Registration Act.