GANESHBHAI SAVJIBHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2023 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GANESHBHAI SAVJIBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KANTILAL A PATEL(9172) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR ASHOK N PARMAR(2431) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 31/08/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and
on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
2) By way of filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the
legality and validity of the order passed by the Special Secretary,
Revenue Department (Appeals and Revision) whereby the matter
has been remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration. The
petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
Page 1 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside
the impugned order dated 13/10/2017 passed in Revision Application
No. MVV/GRKH/BTD/3/2015 by the SSRD remanding the case to the
Collector and be further pleased to confirm and restore the original
order passed by the Collector dated 13/11/2014.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the impugned order of the
Special Secretary (Appeal and Revision) pending the present petition.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further
orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the Interest of Justice.”
3) The case of the petitioners can be summarised, in nutshell,
as under:
3.1) The case is that Petitioner No. 1 is the father, whereas
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are his sons. The petitioners are
agriculturists by profession and their family has been engaged in
agricultural activities for generations. It is the case of the
petitioners that Petitioner No. 1 was declared as an agricultural
labourer by the competent authority. On the strength of the said
certificate issued by the competent revenue authority, Petitioner
No. 1 purchased agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey
No.258 situated at Village Zamarala, jointly with one Khimjibhai,
by executing a registered sale deed. The said sale deed was
executed on 17.09.1973 and pursuant thereto, the corresponding
revenue entry came to be mutated in the revenue record and was
certified on 19.09.1973. Thereafter, the co-purchaser, namely,
Khimjibhai, relinquished his right, title and interest in the said
property and his name came to be deleted from the record of
Page 2 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
rights. The corresponding revenue entry was mutated in the
revenue record and was duly certified by the competent
authority after following the procedure prescribed under law. It
is further the case of the petitioners that pursuant to a family
arrangement, the names of the sons of Petitioner No. 1 were
also entered in the revenue record on 20.01.1983. Thereafter,
Revenue Entry No.1284 came to be mutated in the revenue
record.
3.2) On the strength of the aforesaid revenue entry and the
status of agriculturists acquired by them, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4
purchased agricultural land from respondent Nos.3 and 4 by
executing a registered sale deed dated 29.03.2000. Pursuant
thereto, Revenue Entry No.1142 came to be mutated in the
revenue record and the same was subsequently certified on
15.04.2000. After a considerable period, the seller of the said
property addressed a letter dated 08.02.2012 to the District
Collector, Bhavnagar, stating that at the time of execution of the
sale deed, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were not holding the status of
agriculturists and that they had purchased agricultural land by
executing the registered sale deed.
3.3) It is an admitted position of fact that at the time of the
aforesaid transaction, prior permission of the competent revenue
authority had not been obtained. Therefore, the transaction was
in breach of the statutory provisions governing the transfer of
agricultural land. Consequently, the revenue entry mutated on
Page 3 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
the basis of the registered sale deed was also sought to be
cancelled on the ground that the underlying transaction was in
violation of the statutory provisions of law. Pursuant thereto,
proceedings came to be initiated at the instance of the District
Collector by issuing notice under the provisions of Section 54
read with Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy
Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949. The
petitioners appeared before the authority concerned and
produced various documents in support of their case. It was
specifically contended that the petitioners were agriculturists
and that Petitioner No. 1 was already holding the status of an
agricultural labourer at the time when the first transaction was
entered into in the year 1973. It was, therefore, contended that
the subsequent transactions could not have been treated as
being in breach of the statutory provisions merely on the ground
that prior permission had not been obtained.
3.4) The petitioners further relied upon the fact that the first
transaction was entered into as far back as in the year 1973 and
that the revenue entry pursuant thereto had been duly mutated
and certified. It was also pointed out that thereafter, the names
of the sons of Petitioner No. 1 were entered in the revenue
record pursuant to a family arrangement and that on the
strength of the said revenue record, the subsequent transaction
was entered into in the year 2000. The District Collector, after
considering the material available on record and appreciating the
documents produced by the petitioners, came to the conclusion
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
that the petitioners were holding the status of agricultural
labourers at that relevant point of time and therefore, there was
no breach of the statutory provisions as alleged by the revenue
authorities. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated under the
provisions of Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Saurashtra
Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance,
1949, came to be withdrawn by the District Collector vide order
dated 13.11.2014.
3.5) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
order passed by the District Collector, the Respondent No. 3
preferred a revision application before the Special Secretary,
Revenue Department (Appeals and Revision). The said revision
application came to be allowed by the revisional authority and
the order passed by the District Collector came to be interfered
with. It is against the aforesaid order passed by the Special
Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals and Revision), that the
present petition has been preferred by the petitioners.
4) Heard learned advocate Mr. Harivadan Mishra assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Ashok N. Parmar appearing for the
petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for Respondent No.
3.
5) Learned advocate Mr. Harivadan Mishra assisted by learned
advocate Mr. Ashok N. Parmar, appearing for the petitioners,
submitted that the order passed by the S.S.R.D., whereby the
Page 5 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
order passed by the Collector has been quashed and set aside
and the matter has been remanded for fresh consideration, is
unjust, illegal, erroneous, perverse and contrary to the settled
principles of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set
aside by allowing the present petition. He submitted that it is an
admitted position of fact that the petitioners are members of a
joint family consisting of Petitioner No. 1, who is the father and
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, who are his sons. Petitioner No. 1 was
declared to be an agricultural labourer by the competent
authority and a certificate to that effect was issued by the
competent revenue authority. On the strength of the said status,
Petitioner No. 1 had purchased a parcel of agricultural land
situated at Village Zamrala. Petitioner No. 1, along with his
master, had purchased land bearing Revenue Survey No. 258 of
Village Zamrala by executing a registered sale deed and by
paying the sale consideration on 19.06.1973. Pursuant thereto,
necessary entry was posted in the revenue record vide Revenue
Entry No. 950, which came to be certified by the competent
revenue authority on 19.09.1973. He further submitted that after
a certain period of time, the co-owner and master of Petitioner
No. 1 relinquished his rights in the said property. Pursuant
thereto, necessary entry was mutated in the revenue record and
the same was duly certified by the competent authority after
completion of the requisite formalities. Since then, the said
property has remained in the possession and occupation of
Petitioner No. 1.
Page 6 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
5.1) Learned advocate Mr. Mishra further submitted that
thereafter, a family arrangement was arrived at amongst the
members of the family and, during the lifetime of Petitioner No.
1, the said property was equally divided amongst the members of
the family. Pursuant thereto, the names of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4
were also entered in the revenue record and necessary entry to
that effect was mutated vide Revenue Entry No. 1284. Since
then, all the four petitioners have been cultivating the said
property.
5.2) He submitted that thereafter, in the year 2000, Petitioner
Nos. 2 to 4 purchased agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey
No. 38/3 of Village Samadhiyala-2 from respondent Nos.3 and 4
by executing a registered sale deed dated 29.03.2000. Pursuant
thereto, necessary revenue entry was mutated in the revenue
record and the said entry was also duly certified by the
competent authority. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted
that Respondent No. 3 thereafter addressed a letter dated
08.02.2012, stating that at the time of execution of the sale
deed, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were not holding the status of
agriculturists. According to Respondent No. 3, the petitioners
had purchased agricultural land by executing a registered sale
deed and under the statutory provisions of law, a non-
agriculturist could not purchase agricultural land without
obtaining prior permission or approval from the competent
authority. He submitted that in the present case, according to the
allegation, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 had not obtained any such prior
Page 7 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
permission and therefore, the transaction was alleged to be
contrary to the statutory provisions of law. On such basis, the
transaction was sought to be declared null and void and the
revenue entry mutated pursuant thereto was also sought to be
cancelled.
5.3) He submitted that thereafter, the District Collector, upon
examining the record and the proceedings, prima facie found
substance in the matter and a show-cause notice came to be
issued under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Saurashtra
Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance,
1949. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that during the
interregnum period, the district of Bhavnagar came to be divided
and the property in question fell within the territorial jurisdiction
of the newly constituted district of Botad. Thereafter, the papers
were forwarded to the Collector, Botad. The petitioners
submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice along with
the relevant documents. After considering the material available
on record, the Collector, Botad recorded a finding that at that
relevant point of time, the petitioners were holding the status of
agriculturists and that there was no breach of the statutory
provisions of law. Therefore, the show-cause notice came to be
withdrawn by the Collector vide order dated 13.11.2014.
5.4) He further submitted that being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the said decision of the Collector, Respondent
No. 3 preferred a revision application before the S.S.R.D. The
Page 8 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
said revision application came to be entertained and the order
passed by the Collector came to be interfered with. The matter
was remanded to the Collector with a direction to decide the
same afresh after giving full opportunity to the concerned
parties. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that the entire
proceedings were initiated at the instance of Respondent No. 3,
who himself was one of the sellers of the property. Once the
property has been sold by a party and the sale consideration has
been received by him, such seller cannot thereafter be permitted
to raise a dispute regarding the validity or maintainability of the
very transaction entered into by him. He submitted that
Respondent No. 3, having himself executed the sale transaction
and received the sale consideration, had no locus to
subsequently challenge the transaction.
5.5) He further submitted that Respondent No. 3 had himself
submitted an application before the competent revenue
authority, pursuant to which the revenue authorities took suo
motu cognizance of the matter. In such circumstances, the order
passed by the Collector could not have been challenged by
Respondent No. 3 before the S.S.R.D., as he had no locus standi
to challenge the same. Despite this, the S.S.R.D. entertained the
revision application preferred by Respondent No. 3. He,
therefore, submitted that solely on this ground, the order passed
by the S.S.R.D. deserves to be quashed and set aside and the
present petition deserves to be allowed. Learned advocate Mr.
Mishra further submitted that Respondent No. 3 had no locus to
Page 9 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
challenge the earlier sale deed executed in the year 1973
between the father of Respondent No. 4, being the original
owner of the property, and Petitioner No. 1. Therefore,
Respondent No. 3 cannot be treated as an aggrieved person so
far as the validity of the sale deed executed in the year 1973 is
concerned.
5.6) Learned advocate Mr. Mishra further submitted that it is a
settled proposition of law that proceedings alleging breach of
statutory provisions are required to be initiated within a
reasonable period of time. Though the statute may not prescribe
any specific period of limitation for initiation of such
proceedings, the power cannot be exercised after an
unreasonable and inordinate delay. He submitted that, in the
present case, the proceedings have been initiated at the instance
of the revenue authorities on the basis of the application
submitted by Respondent No. 3 after an inordinate lapse of
time. He submitted that the first transaction was entered into as
far back as in the year 1973, whereas the proceedings came to be
initiated only in the year 2012, i.e. after a lapse of about 39 years
from the first transaction. He submitted that such belated
exercise of power is not permissible in law.
5.7) He further submitted that several decisions have
consistently laid down that where proceedings for breach of
statutory provisions are initiated after an unreasonable and
inordinate delay, the same are liable to be quashed solely on the
Page 10 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
ground of delay and laches. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra places
reliance upon various judgments in support of his submission and
submitted that the present proceedings, having been initiated
after such an inordinate delay, are clearly vitiated.
5.8) Learned advocate Mr. Mishra further submitted that
Petitioner No. 1 was an agricultural labourer and a certificate to
that effect had also been issued by the competent revenue
authority. On the basis of the said document and status, the first
transaction was entered into by Petitioner No. 1 by executing a
registered sale deed in the year 1973. Pursuant thereto, the
necessary revenue entry was mutated in the revenue record and
was duly certified by the competent revenue authority. At the
relevant point of time, all necessary and requisite formalities had
been completed before the revenue authorities. He, therefore,
submitted that the order passed by the Collector is just, fair,
reasonable and legal and does not call for any interference. The
order passed by the S.S.R.D., on the other hand, is contrary to the
material available on record and the settled principles of law and,
therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He submitted
that, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
6) None appears on behalf of the private respondents.
7) Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi, appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1, fairly considered before this Court that the
Page 11 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
first transaction had taken place between the parties in the year
1973, pursuant to which the necessary revenue entry was also
mutated in the revenue record. However, till date, no objection
has been raised by any person with regard to the execution of
the said sale deed. He further submitted that, thereafter, in the
year 2000, a second sale transaction had taken place between
the parties in respect of the subject property. After a
considerable period of time, Respondent No. 3 addressed a
letter to the concerned authority, stating that at the time of
execution of the said transaction, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were not
holding the status of agriculturists and that the transaction had
been entered into in violation of the statutory provisions of law.
7.1) Learned AGP submitted that the proceedings were initiated
by the revenue authorities on the basis of the documents and
material supplied by Respondent No. 3 along with his
application. Therefore, though the dispute essentially arises
between private individuals, the revenue authorities were
required to examine whether there was any breach of the
statutory provisions governing the transaction. He further
submitted that upon examination of the record, the Collector
had initially come to the conclusion that no breach of the
statutory provisions of law was made out and accordingly, passed
an order withdrawing the show-cause notice issued against the
petitioners.
7.2) Learned AGP submitted that the said order was challenged
Page 12 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
before the higher authority. The revisional authority, while
examining the matter, found that the petitioners had taken a
specific stand before the Collector that Petitioner No. 1 was
holding the status of an agricultural labourer at that relevant
point of time. However, in support of the said contention, the
petitioners had not produced any supporting documentary
evidence. The revisional authority was, therefore, of the opinion
that the conclusion arrived at by the Collector was based
primarily on the statement made by the petitioners without
there being sufficient documentary material in support thereof.
7.3) He submitted that in view of the above, the revisional
authority considered it appropriate to remand the matter to the
Collector for fresh consideration so that the relevant documents
could be produced and the issue could be examined afresh after
providing appropriate opportunity of hearing to all the
concerned parties. Learned AGP, therefore, submitted that the
order passed by the revisional authority is just, fair and legal and
does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He
submitted that the relevant facts and material would come on
record when the matter is reconsidered by the Collector on the
basis of the documents and material that may be produced by
the concerned parties. Considering the aforesaid submissions
and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
learned AGP submitted that there is no merit in the present
petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Page 13 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
8) Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties had having gone through the records and proceedings.
9) The question involved in the present case is no longer res
integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Another Vs. D.
Narsing Rao And Others, (2015) 3 SCC 695, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has dealt with exercise of suo-motu revisional powers
after nearly 5 decades and has ruled that unexplained and
inordinate delay in invoking such power would itself tantamount
to fraud upon statute apart from being arbitrary and opposed to
rule of law. Useful reference can be made to the observations
made in paragraphs 14, 16 & 17 which read as under:
“14. Admittedly, the names of the predecessors-in-title of the
respondents are found mentioned in the khasra pahani of the year
1954-1955 pertaining to Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally
Village. The purchase of the said lands by the respondents from them
under registered sale deeds are also not seriously disputed. The
further fact is that they have been regularly paying land revenue
continuously since the year 1954. The appellants herein issued
impugned notice dated 31-12-2004 under Section 166-B of the A.P.
(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F (1907) for cancellation
of entries in the khasra pahani of the year 1953-1954, by fixing the
date of inquiry as 5-2-2005 and that notice is the subject-matter of
challenge here.
16. No time-limit is prescribed in the above section for the exercise of
suo motu power but the question is as to whether the suo motu
power could be exercised after a period of 50 years. The Government
as early as in the year 1991 passed an order reserving 477 acres of
land in Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally Village for house sites to
the government employees. In other words, the Government had
every occasion to verify the revenue entries pertaining to the said
lands while passing the Government Order dated 24-9-1991 but no
Page 14 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
exception was taken to the entries found. Further the respondents
herein filed Writ Petition No. 21719 of 1997 challenging the
Government Order dated 24-9-1991 and even at that point of time
no action was initiated pertaining to the entries in the said survey
numbers. Thereafter, the purchasers of land from Respondents 1 and
2 herein filed a civil suit in OS No. 12 of 2001 on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for a
declaration that they were lawful owners and possessors of certain
plots of land in Survey No. 36, and after contest, the suit was decreed
and said decree is NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/253/2013 JUDGMENT
DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined allowed to become final. By the
impugned notice dated 31-12-2004 the suo motu revision power
under Section 166-B referred to above is sought to be exercised after
five decades and if it is allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous
position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting
the rights of the parties over immovable properties.
17. In the light of what is stated above we are of the view that the
Division Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the view of
the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the suo motu
revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of
any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of
rule of law.”
10) Reiteration of this aspect is again found in paragraphs 30
and 31, where the Apex Court refers to the decision in the case of
Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. District Board,
Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598 and in paragraph 31 where principal
of law is laid down as under:
“31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned
upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open
to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in
human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when
there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such
powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-
party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a
discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the
delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of
life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are
fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period
Page 15 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to
be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity;
for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be
tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an
authority.”
11) In the present case also there is delay of 42 years in
initiating suo-motu proceedings after the certification of Entry
No.865 in the year 1972. Therefore, facts in the present case and
facts of the aforequoted decisions of the Apex Court are similar
in nature so far as the nature of the dispute and the extent of
delay are concerned. Hence, even in this case, it can safely be said
that exercise of power by the Collector, Kutch tantamounts to
arbitrary and illegal exercise of such power.
12) Moreover, when the question of delay comes, then all other
issues including breach of any of the provisions would not have
much relevance in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha,
reported in 1969 (2) SCC 187 . Similarly, in a judgment reported
in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. v.
Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors., reported in (2009) 9 SCC
353; 2009 AIR SCW 6305, it has been observed that such power
cannot be exercised beyond a reasonable period. It has been
observed thus;
“…Having regard to the fact that the proceedings came to be
initiated after delay of more than about three years and that the
petitioner is not guilty of fraud or suppression, the impugned
proceedings and order cannot be said to have been initiated within
reasonable time inasmuch as the notice under the Act was issued in
2005. The proceedings and the order are hit by the vice of delay…”
Page 16 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
13) Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a
judgment reported in 2013(2) GLR 1788 in the case of Chandulal
Gordhandas Ranodriya and Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors . had
considered this aspect with reference to the delay in exercise of
such powers and the reasonable period. It has been observed as
under;
“It must be fairly said that if the statute does not prescribe time-limit
for exercise of revisional powers, it does not mean that such powers
can be exercised at any point of time even if there is a breach of
Section 43 of the Act, which is a provision which relates to a new
tenure land, rather it should be exercised within a reasonable period
of time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be
unsettled after a long lapse of time. It is clear from various
judgments of the Supreme Court that where a statutory provision for
exercise of any suo motu powers of revision does not prescribe any
limitation, the powers must be exercised within a reasonable period
of time even in the case of transaction which would be termed as
void transaction.”
14) Thus, the moot question is what could be considered to be
“reasonable time” when the statute does not provide for any
time-limit for exercise of such powers. The Division Bench of the
High Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Chandulal
Gordhandas Ranodriya (supra) has observed in para 38 referring
to an earlier judgment reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488, As
observed in Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, 2002(1) SCC 134,
it is “looking at all the circumstances of the case, a ‘reasonable
time’ under ordinary circumstances; as soon as circumstances will
permit; so much time as it is necessary under the circumstances,
conveniently to do what the contract requires should be done;
some more protracted space than ‘directly’; such length of time
Page 17 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
as may fairly, and properly, and reasonably be allowed or
required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to
the attending circumstances; all these convey more or less the
same idea”.
15) Further, it has been observed, “That is a reasonable time
that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he
possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not
to suffer (Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn.,
2005).”
16) In case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai
Ibrahim, (1997) 6 SCC 71 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in connection
with other statutory provisions, and relying upon the case of
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and in the case of Ram
Chand vs. Union of India [1994 (1) SCC 4] has impressed that
where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a
statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time;
such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time.
17) It is also an admitted position of fact that Petitioner No. 1
had purchased the subject property along with his master in the
year 1973 by way of a registered sale deed. Pursuant to the said
sale deed, the necessary revenue entry was mutated in the
revenue record and the same was duly certified by the
competent authority. Thereafter, the master of Petitioner No. 1
relinquished his rights in favour of Petitioner No. 1 and necessary
entry was mutated in the revenue record, whereby Petitioner No.
Page 18 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
1 came to be shown as the sole owner and occupant of the said
property. It further appears from the record that Petitioner Nos.
2 to 4 are the sons of Petitioner No. 1. Pursuant to the family
arrangement between the members of the family, the subject
property was partitioned and the names of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4
were entered in the revenue record. The said entry was also duly
certified by the competent authority. Thus, the names of
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 remained in the revenue record for a
considerable period. Thereafter, in the year 2000, Petitioner Nos.
2 to 4 entered into a registered sale transaction in respect of the
subject land with Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by executing a
registered sale deed dated 29.03.2000. Pursuant thereto, the
necessary revenue entry was mutated in the revenue record and
the same was also certified by the competent authority.
18) It is also an admitted position that the first transaction in
favour of Petitioner No. 1 had taken place in the year 1973,
whereas the proceedings came to be initiated only in the year
2012, at the instance of Respondent No. 3. The allegation made
by Respondent No. 3 was that at the time of entering into the
transaction, the petitioners were not agriculturists and
therefore, the transaction was in breach of the provisions of the
Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands
Ordinance, 1949. Pursuant to the said application, proceedings
under Section 54 read with Section 75 of the Ordinance were
initiated. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. The
petitioners appeared and placed the relevant documents and
Page 19 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
material on record, including the material with regard to the
status of Petitioner No. 1 as an agricultural labourer.
19) The Collector, after considering the documents and
material available on record, passed an order dated 13.11.2014
and withdrew the show-cause notice. The Collector was of the
view that there was no breach of the statutory provisions and
therefore, no further proceedings were required to be
undertaken against the petitioners. The said order was
challenged by Respondent No. 3 before the SSRD. The SSRD, by
the impugned order dated 13.10.2017, set aside the order passed
by the Collector and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration. The main reason recorded by the SSRD was that
the petitioners had not produced sufficient documentary
evidence to establish that Petitioner No. 1 was an agricultural
labourer at the time of the transaction of the year 1973.
20) Therefore, I am of the opinion that while passing the order
of remand, the SSRD has failed to consider the important aspect
of delay involved in initiating the proceedings. The registered
sale deed in favour of Petitioner No. 1 was executed in the year
1973. Pursuant thereto, the revenue entry was mutated and
certified. The said transaction has remained in existence for
about 39 years before the proceedings were initiated in the year
2012. The said registered sale deed has not been cancelled or
declared invalid by any competent court. Similarly, the names of
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were entered in the revenue record
pursuant to the family arrangement and remained there for a
Page 20 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
considerable period. Thereafter, on the basis of their existing
rights, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 executed the registered sale deed in
the year 2000 and the necessary revenue entry was mutated and
certified. The said transaction was challenged only in the year
2012. It is an admitted position fact that the statute may not
prescribe any specific period of limitation for initiating such
proceedings. However, it is well settled that merely because no
period of limitation is prescribed, the authority cannot exercise
the power at any point of time. Such power is required to be
exercised within a reasonable period.
21) In the present case, the first transaction had taken place in
the year 1973 and the proceedings were initiated only in the year
2012, i.e. after a lapse of about 39 years. There is no satisfactory
explanation on record for such an extraordinary delay. The
Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court in number of decisions
have reiterated that even where no specific period of limitation is
prescribed, the statutory power is required to be exercised
within a reasonable period. The rights which have remained
settled for a considerable period cannot be unsettled after an
unreasonable and unexplained delay. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that the initiation of proceedings after about 39 years
from the first transaction cannot be said to be within a
reasonable period. The revenue authorities had already mutated
and certified the relevant entries pursuant to the registered
documents and the same remained in the revenue record for
several years.
Page 21 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
22) It is also relevant to note that Respondent No. 3, despite
being a party to the subsequent registered sale transaction, did
not challenge the validity of the said sale deed before the
competent civil court. The registered sale deed has continued to
remain in existence. In such circumstances, the validity of the
transaction could not have been sought to be reopened before
the revenue authority after such a long period, particularly when
the corresponding revenue entry had already been mutated and
certified. Further, the SSRD, while remanding the matter, has
mainly proceeded on the ground that sufficient documents were
not produced to establish the status of Petitioner No. 1 as an
agricultural labourer in the year 1973. However, before directing
a fresh inquiry on such issue, the SSRD ought to have considered
whether such inquiry could at all be undertaken after a lapse of
about 39 years. The issue of reasonable time goes to the root of
the matter. Thus, even if no specific period of limitation is
prescribed under the statute, the same would not give power to
the authority to reopen transactions after an unreasonable
period. Long-standing transactions, which have been acted upon
and reflected in the revenue record for several years, cannot be
unsettled without there being a valid and sufficient reason for
such delayed exercise of power.
23) Considering the totality of the facts of the matter, I am of
the considered opinion that the order dated 13.11.2014 passed
by the Collector, whereby the proceedings under Section 54 read
with Section 75 of the Ordinance were withdrawn, was just and
Page 22 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026
C/SCA/2023/2018 (GJHC240066032018) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
proper. The SSRD was, therefore, not justified in setting aside the
said order and remanding the matter for fresh inquiry.
24) In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the foregoing
reasons, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Special
Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) in Revision Application
No. MVV/GRKH/BTD/3/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the original order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the
Collector is hereby confirmed and restored. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 23 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:48:27 IST 2026