SCA/1559/1993 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1559 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil Judge? No ========================================================= ABDUL REHMAN JUSAF PINJARA - Petitioner(s) Versus DY COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MB FAROOQUI for Petitioner MR AMIT PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 20/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate Writ, direction and/or order SCA/1559/1993 2/6 JUDGMENT quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Nakhatrana dated 27.07.1989 in Revision Application No.25 of 1989 quashing and setting aside the entry in the revenue record, confirmed by the Collector, Kutch vide judgment and order dated 30.01.1991 passed in R.R.T.Revision Application No.41 of 1990, further confirmed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State vide judgment and order dated 21.12.1992 passed in S.R.D.Application No.9 of 1991. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner in the petition that the petitioner has purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No.88 and Survey No.87/1 admeasuring 12 Acres 25 Gunthas and 10 Acres and 27 Guntha situated in Village – Charkhada Taluka – Nakhtarana in an auction held by the learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Nakhtarana, in the year 1978-79. Necessary entry was made in the revenue record in the year 1978-79 itself. After a period of eleven years of mutation entry in the revenue record, suo-moto revision was taken by the Deputy Collector, Nakhtarana in the year 1989 and in exercise of powers SCA/1559/1993 3/6 JUDGMENT under Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, Deputy Collector, Nakhtarana vide judgment and order dated 27.07.1989 passed an order to set aside mutation entry by which name of the petitioner was entered into, by holding that the petitioner was not agriculturalist when he purchased land in Court auction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector, Nakhatarana dated 27.07.1989 passed in Revision Application No.25 of 1989, the petitioner preferred Revision Application being R.R.T.No.41 of 1990 before the Collector, Kutch who vide judgment and order dated 31.01.1991 dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order dated 27.07.1989 passed by the Deputy Collector, Nakhatarana. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Collector, Kutch, the petitioner preferred further Revision Application before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat being S.R.D. No.9 of 1991 and the said Revision Application came to be dismissed by Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by judgment and order dated 21.12.1992. Being aggrieved SCA/1559/1993 4/6 JUDGMENT and dissatisfied with the aforesaid three orders, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr.Farooqui, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the entry was made in the revenue record in the year 1980 on the basis of purchase of land in question by the petitioner in Court auction held by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Nakhatarana and Deputy Collector, Nakhatarana exercised suo-moto revisional powers after a period of nine years i.e. after unreasonable delay which the Deputy Collector could not have exercised. He has submitted that the controversy involved is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v/s. Patel Raghavanath reported in 1969 GLR 992 as well as decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.3589 of 1992 and other cognate matters and Special Civil Application No.4000 of 1992, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil SCA/1559/1993 5/6 JUDGMENT Application. 4. Mr.Amit Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to dispute that the Deputy Collector has exercised suo-moto revisional powers after a period of nine years. Even otherwise, from the record it is clear that the petitioner purchased properties in question in the year 1979 in an auction held by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Nakhatarana and necessary mutation entry were made in the year 1980. It also appears that the Deputy Collector for the first time took aforesaid entry suo-moto revision in the year 1989 i.e. after nine years from the date of entry. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Raghavanath (supra) and this Court in Special Civil Application No.3589 of 1992 and other cognate matters and Special Civil Application No.4000 of 1992, exercise of powers after a period of nine years can be said to be exercising powers after unreasonable period and therefore, on this ground alone present petition requires to be allowed. The respondent – authorities have exercised powers after inordinate and unexplained delay of not less than nine years. SCA/1559/1993 6/6 JUDGMENT Therefore, the said actions are required to be quashed and set aside and cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. 6. For the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. Impugned orders 27.07.1989 passed by the Deputy Collector, Nakhatrana in Revision Application No.25 of 1989; order dated 30.01.1991 passed in R.R.T.Revision Application No.41 of 1990 by the Collector, Kutch and order dated 21.12.1992 passed in S.R.D.Application No.9 of 1991 by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. [M.R.Shah,J.] satish