Case: State Of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha &amp; Ors

Section 48 (2) where the land assessed for use, say for agricultural purposes, is used for industrial purposes, the assessment is liable to be altered and fixed at a different rate by such authority and subject to such rules as the state Government may prescribe in this behalf. The rates for non-agricultural assessment are fixed under Rules 81, 82, 82A 82AA, 84 and 85 of the Rules. Rule 87 (b) provides that where land is assessed under the provisions of Rules 81 to 85, a sanad shall be granted. Under the proviso to Rule 87 (b) it is obligatory for the sanad to be granted in form MI.8. Relying on Shri Mithoo Shahani v. Union of India, 1964-7 SCR 103 =(AIR 1964 SC 1586) the learned counsel contends that there is a distinction between an order granting permission under Section 65 and the agreement contained in the sanad which is issued under R. 87 (b). He urges that even if the sanad may not be revisable under Section 211 of the Code, the order granting permission under Section 65 is revisable under Section 211, and if this order is revised the sanad falls along with the order.9. We need not give our views on this alleged distinction for two reasons; first, that this point was not debated before the High Court in this case or in earlier cases,**and secondly, because we have come to the conclusion that the order of the Commissioner must be quashed on other grounds.*(1) The Government of the Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manekji- (1940) LPA No. 40 of 1938, D/- 8-8-1940 (Bom).(2) Government of Bombay v. Mathurdas Laljibhai, 44 Bom LR 405 = (AIR 1942 Bom 256 ).(3) The State of Bombay v. Chhaganlal Gangaram Lavar, 56 Bom LR 1084= (AIR 1955 Bom 1 (FB)).(4) Government of Bombay v. Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Co., AIR 1944 Bom 244 .(5) Secretary of State v. Anant Nulkar, 36 Bom LR 242 (AIR 1934 PC 9 ).(6) Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manekji, 50 Bom LR 524=(AIR 1947) PC 200 )10. Section 211 reads thus:"211. The State Government and any revenue officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector or a Superintendent of Survey, in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceed ings of any subordinate revenue officer for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer.The following officers may in the same manner call for and examine the proceedings of any officer subordinate to them in any matter in which neither a formal nor a summary inquiry has been held, namely,.. . . .. a Mamlatdar, a Mahalkari, an Assistant Superintendent of Survey and an Assistant Settlement Officer.If in any case it shall appear to the State Government or to such officer aforesaid that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, it or he may pass such order thereon as it or he deems fit:Provided that an Assistant or Deputy Collector shall not himself pass such order in any matter in which a formal inquiry has been held, but shall submit the record with his opinion to the Collector, who shall pass such order thereon as he may deem fit."11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plan that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined of the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised.12. It seems to us that Section 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Section 211. Under Section 65 of the Code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Sections 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector on October 12, 1961, i. e., more than a year after the order, and it seems to us that this order was passed too late.13. We are also of the opinion that the order of the Commissioner should be quashed on the ground that he did not give any reasons for his conclusions. We have already extracted the passage above which shows that after reciting the various contentions he baldly stated his conclusions without disclosing his reasons. In a matter of this kind the Commissioner should indicate his reasons, however briefly, so that an aggrieved party may carry the matter further if so advised.14. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should not have gone into the question of title. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. We need not give our views on this alleged distinction for two reasons; first, that this point was not debated before the High Court in this case or in earlier cases,**and secondly, because we have come to the conclusion that the order of the Commissioner must be quashed on other grounds.The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time.It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plan that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined of the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised.12. It seems to us that Section 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Section 211. Under Section 65 of the Code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Sections 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector on October 12, 1961, i. e., more than a year after the order, and it seems to us that this order was passed too late.13. We are also of the opinion that the order of the Commissioner should be quashed on the ground that he did not give any reasons for his conclusions. We have already extracted the passage above which shows that after reciting the various contentions he baldly stated his conclusions without disclosing his reasons. In a matter of this kind the Commissioner should indicate his reasons, however briefly, so that an aggrieved party may carry the matter further if so advised.14. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should not have gone into the question of title. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent court and not to decide the question of title himself against theis true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plan that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined of the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised.