NITIN VISHANJI SHAH (DEDHIYA) vs SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS), ,REVENUE DEPARTMENT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1953 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NITIN VISHANJI SHAH (DEDHIYA)
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS), ,REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NAME DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 5
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Respondent(s) No. 5
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 6.3
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,6
MR. SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,6.1,6.2,6.3.1,6.3.2,6.4
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 6.1,6.2,6.3.1,6.3.2,6.4
RULE THROUGH SPEED POST NOT RECEIVED BACK for the
Respondent(s) No. 5.1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 29/06/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:
‘’(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and
Page 1 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
setting aside order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the respondent no.1
in Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/Kutch/18/2014 and further be
pleased to uphold the order passed by the learned Deputy Collector
dated 5.3.2009 and order passed by the learned District Collector
dated 23.12.2013;
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition,
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation,
operation and execution of the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by
the respondent no.1 in Revision Application No.
MVV/HKP/Kutch/18/2014 and further be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities not to take any coercive action against the
petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.5 not
to take any disadvantage of the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by
the respondent no.1;
(C) Any other and further relief that may deem fit by this Hon'ble
Court in the interest of justice.’’
2) The case of the petitioner can be summarised, in a nutshell,
as under:
2.1) The land bearing Survey No. 86, admeasuring 10 acres and
34 gunthas, situated at Village Bhorara, Taluka: Mundra, District
Kutch, was jointly owned and occupied by Shah Jagashi Karamshi
– respondent No. 5 herein and Shah Harakchand Vishanji. Another
parcel of land bearing Survey No. 206 paiki, admeasuring 1 acre
and 0 guntha, was exclusively owned by Shah Jagashi Karamshi.
Thus, out of the total land admeasuring 11 acres and 34 gunthas,
5 acres belonged to Shah Harakchand Vishanji and the remaining
6 acres and 34 gunthas belonged to Shah Jagashi Karamshi. Out
of the aforesaid land admeasuring 11 acres and 34 gunthas, the
petitioner purchased 6 acres by way of a registered sale deed
dated 18.06.1992. Pursuant thereto, the relevant revenue entry
Page 2 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
was also mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, in the year
1996, the Deputy Collector, Bhuj initiated proceedings under the
provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground of breach of the
provisions thereof. Ultimately, the sale transaction came to be
declared invalid.
2.2) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision
of the Deputy Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Special Secretary (Appeals) under Section 35 of the
Fragmentation Act, wherein interim injunction came to be
granted. Subsequently, the appeal was allowed with a specific
direction that respondent No. 5 – the original vendor – shall apply
before the competent authority for obtaining non-agricultural
permission in respect of the land admeasuring 0 acre and 34
gunthas for conversion of the same from agricultural to non-
agricultural use. It was further directed that such exercise shall
be carried out within a period of six months from the date of the
order, failing which the order passed by the Deputy Collector
would automatically shall stand restored. It was also directed
that if the non-agricultural permission was obtained and
produced before the competent authority within the stipulated
period of six months, the notice pursuant to which the suo motu
proceedings had been initiated requires to be declared as
cancelled and to be withdrawn. The said order came to be passed
on 13.08.1999/21.09.1999.
Page 3 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
2.3) Respondent No. 5 – the vendor – submitted an application
before the competent authority on 14.04.2000 for conversion of
the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use, i.e., after a
period of eight months from the date of the aforesaid order. The
said application came to be granted on 07.08.2000, whereby the
land admeasuring 0 acre and 34 gunthas was converted into non-
agricultural land. Thereafter, respondent No. 5, namely Shah
Jagashi Karamshi, got Revenue Entry No. 869 mutated in the
revenue record on 21.07.2006 through the revenue authorities,
recording that the sale transaction had been effected pursuant
to the execution of the registered sale deed. It was further
recorded that the said transaction had been carried out in
contravention of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act and
that the vendor was required to deposit a penalty of Rs. 250. The
said entry came to be certified on 11.10.2006.
2.4) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said revenue
entry, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy
Collector. After considering the documents and material
available on record, the Deputy Collector allowed the appeal. The
said order was challenged by respondent No. 5 before the
Collector by way of a revision application, however, the same
came to be dismissed. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 preferred a
revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue
Department (Appeals) (SSRD), which came to be allowed. Hence,
the present petition has been filed.
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing of the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami for the
Respondent – State.
4) Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing for the
petitioner has reiterated the factual aspects of the matter and
submitted that a bare perusal of the documents and material
available on record clearly crystallises the factual position that
respondent No. 5 had acted with a mala fide intention right from
the inception of the transaction entered into with the petitioner.
He submitted that it is an admitted position that respondent Nos.
5 and 6 were the joint owners of the land admeasuring 11 acres
and 34 gunthas and that the petitioner had purchased 6 acres of
land by way of a registered sale deed. Therefore, by no stretch of
imagination it could be said that the petitioner had consciously
entered into a transaction in contravention of the provisions of
the Fragmentation Act. However, it emerges from the record
that the total parcel of land admeasuring 11 acres and 34
gunthas had been partitioned between the co-owners and that 5
acres and 34 gunthas had fallen to the share of respondent No. 5.
Out of the said share, 5 acres had been sold in favour of the
petitioner. Consequently, the authorities proceeded on the
premise that only 34 gunthas remained with respondent No. 5
and that the said parcel constituted a fragment within the
meaning of the Fragmentation Act, pursuant to which
proceedings came to be initiated by issuance of notice.
Page 5 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
4.1) Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that
it has been the consistent stand of the petitioner that he was
unaware of the statutory provisions of the Fragmentation Act
and that at the time of entering into the transaction, he had
purchased 6 acres of land from the co-owners who were jointly
cultivating the property. He further submitted that during the
proceedings before the Deputy Collector, the original vendor had
specifically contended that the land admeasuring 34 gunthas
contained certain trees, a well with apparatus used for
agricultural purposes, and structures erected for labourers. It
was also contended that the said parcel was not being used
independently as agricultural land. However, after considering
the documents and material available on record, the Deputy
Collector came to the conclusion that there was a breach of the
provisions of the Fragmentation Act since 34 gunthas of
agricultural land remained with respondent No. 5 after the
transaction. Accordingly, the sale transaction came to be
declared illegal, in contravention of the statutory provisions of
law and also penalty of time was imposed. Being aggrieved by
the said order, the petitioner approached the Special Secretary,
Revenue Department (Appeals) [SSRD] by way of filing an appeal.
While entertaining the proceedings, SSRD directed Respondent
No. 5 to submit an application for conversion of the remaining
land admeasuring 34 gunthas from agricultural to non-
agricultural use. It was specifically directed that the said exercise
requires to be completed within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of the order. A further direction was issued to the
Page 6 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
competent authority to consider such application
sympathetically. It was also observed that if the land was
ultimately converted into non-agricultural land, the original
revenue entry should be restored.
4.2) Learned advocate Mr. Purohit submitted that despite the
aforesaid clear directions, respondent No. 5 deliberately did not
comply the said directions issued by the SSRD. It was submitted
that respondent No. 5 belatedly preferred an application for
conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use
on 14.04.2000, despite being fully aware that the same required
to be filed within a period of time of six months prescribed by the
SSRD. The said application was ultimately granted on 07.08.2000
and the land was converted into non-agricultural land.
Thereafter, Revenue Entry No. 744 came to be mutated in the
revenue record on 08.10.2003 and subsequently certified in
December, 2003.
4.3) Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submitted that the
original proceedings under the Fragmentation Act had
themselves been initiated after lapse of period of limitations.
The transaction had taken place in the year 1992 whereas
proceedings were initiated only in the year 1996. Relying upon
the settled proposition of law that suo motu powers must be
exercised within a reasonable period, he submitted that initiation
of proceedings after such delay itself rendered the proceedings
unsustainable. It was further submitted that thereafter, in the
Page 7 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
year 2006, respondent No. 5, in collusion with the revenue
authorities, got Revenue Entry No. 869 mutated on 21.07.2006,
which subsequently came to be certified on 11.10.2006, thereby
restoring the original position of the property in the revenue
record. As soon as these facts came to the knowledge of the
petitioner, he immediately preferred appeal before the Deputy
Collector and placed on record the entire sequence of events of
incidents occurred in the matter. After considering the
documents and material available on record, the Deputy
Collector allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
4.4) Learned advocate Mr. Purohit submitted that it is an
admitted position of fact that the directions issued by the SSRD
were required to be followed by respondent No. 5 in a very
scrupulous manner. However, respondent No. 5 deliberately did
not comply the said directions of the SSRD within the stipulated
time and intentionally submitted the application to convert the
property from agriculture to non-agricultural, after expiry of the
prescribed time limit. Therefore, on the strength of the above-
stated factual aspects, it can safely be said that such conduct
clearly demonstrates that respondent No. 5 had not approached
the authorities with clean hands and had acted solely with a view
to defeat the valuable rights of the petitioner.
4.5) He further submitted that though the Deputy Collector had
granted relief in favour of the petitioner and the revision
preferred by respondent No. 5 before the Collector also came to
Page 8 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
be dismissed, the SSRD, while reversing the concurrent findings
recorded by the Deputy Collector and the Collector, failed to
appreciate that respondent No. 5 had himself violated the
conditions imposed under the earlier order of the SSRD. It was
submitted that once the time-limit fixed by the SSRD had expired
and the conditions were not complied with, the consequences
stipulated in the order were required to follow automatically.
Therefore, the order passed by the SSRD deserves to be quashed
and set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Collector
deserves to be restored.
4.6) Learned advocate Mr. Purohit further submitted that the
conduct, behaviour, attitude and approach of the parties are
relevant considerations while adjudicating the issues involved in
the matter. Admittedly, as per the directions of the SSRD,
respondent No. 5 was required to initiate proceedings for
obtaining non-agricultural permission within six months from the
date of receipt of the order passed by the SSRD. However, the
application was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed time
period. All these particular facts clearly indicate the mala fide
intention of respondent No. 5. He further submitted that by the
time the proceedings reached the SSRD, the land had already
been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use and, in
view of various Government Resolutions/ Circulars issued by the
State Government from time to time, the controversy had
virtually become academic. Nevertheless, the SSRD failed to
appreciate that the proceedings for obtaining non-agricultural
Page 9 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
permission had been initiated belatedly and in breach of the
specific conditions imposed under the earlier order. It was
submitted that respondent No. 5 cannot be permitted to take
advantage of his own wrong and that the SSRD ought not to have
interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Deputy
Collector and the Collector.
4.7) In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Purohit
placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in the
case of Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera vs. Secretary (Appeals),
Revenue Department, Gujarat State and Others , Mithalal
Mukunchand vs. State of Gujarat and Others , and Evergreen
Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Special
Secretary, Revenue Department, Gujarat State , reported in
1991 (1) GLR 113 . Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, he
submitted that where there is no allegation of fraud or
suppression of material facts and the authorities were otherwise
aware of the transaction, initiation of proceedings after an
unreasonable delay would become fatal. The proceedings having
been initiated after several years and the same deserve to be
quashed and set aside on the ground of inordinate and
unreasonable delay alone.
5) Learned AGP Mr. Siddharth Rami appearing for the
respondent–State submitted that the entire sequence of events
that has transpired in the present matter has already been
elaborately narrated by the learned advocate for the petitioner
Page 10 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
and therefore, with a view to saving the valuable time of this
Court, he does not propose to reiterate the same facts. He
submitted that it is an admitted position that while entertaining
the proceedings before the Special Secretary, Revenue
Department (Appeals) [SSRD] at the first instance, a specific time
schedule had been prescribed by the authority concerned.
Apparently, on the face on record by making cursory glance upon
the documents and material available on record, it clearly reveals
that the time-limit fixed by the SSRD was not strictly adhered in a
scrupulous manner. Therefore, the authority concerned was
justified in holding that if the application for non-agricultural
permission was not submitted and the requisite permission was
not obtained within a period of six months from the date of the
order, the original position of the property requires to be
restored in terms of the directions contained in the order itself.
5.1) Learned AGP further submitted that the petitioner was
fully aware of the directions issued by the SSRD and had closely
monitored the proceedings. If the petitioner was of the view that
respondent No. 5 had failed to comply the directions within the
stipulated period, it was always open for him to approach the
competent authority and seek appropriate relief for extension of
time. However, the petitioner chose not to take any steps and
remained a silent spectator throughout the proceedings. He
submitted that the authority concerned has rightly observed that
where a specific time-limit is prescribed by an order, the same is
required to be complied with in a stricto sensu manner. Since the
Page 11 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
conditions imposed by the SSRD were not complied with within
the stipulated period, the consequences contemplated under the
order were bound to follow and the original position of the
property was liable to be restored. It was, therefore, submitted
that no error of fact or law much, apparent on the face of the
record, can be said to have been committed by the SSRD while
passing the impugned order. The petitioner cannot be permitted
to derive any advantage from the circumstances arising out of
non-compliance with the conditions imposed under the earlier
order. In such circumstances, the impugned order does not
warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merits,
deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
6) Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the documents and material available on
record, it is found that the petitioner herein had purchased the
said property from the original property owners by way of a
registered sale deed executed on 18.06.1992, pursuant to which
the name of the petitioner had already been mutated in the
revenue record. The said entry was subsequently certified by the
authority concerned. The Deputy Collector, Bhuj had initiated suo
motu proceedings on the ground that the transaction which took
place between the parties prima facie appeared to be in
contravention of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act.
Therefore, proceedings for breach of the provisions of the
Fragmentation Act were initiated and ultimately the authority
Page 12 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
jumped to the conclusion that the said sale transaction was
invalid and in contravention of the statutory provisions of law.
The authority assigned reasons to the effect that, on the
strength of the execution of the registered sale deed, only 34
gunthas of agricultural land remained with the original property
owner and the said parcel of land would fall within the definition
of a fragment. The said decision was assailed before the SSRD
and, after considering and appreciating the documentary
evidence available on record as well as the arguments canvassed
by the advocates for the rival parties, the authority concerned
jumped to the conclusion that the said 34 gunthas of land had in
fact been used for non-agricultural purposes for many years.
6.1) It was further observed that if any application was
preferred to that effect, the same was required to be considered
by the revenue authority in a sympathetic manner. The vendor
was directed to submit an application to the authority concerned
within a period of six months from the date of the order and, if
the said property was converted into non-agricultural land, the
entry was required to be restored. A specific direction was issued
to the effect that if no application was preferred within six
months, the original order passed by the Deputy Collector was
required to be restored. By passing the said order, the SSRD
quashed and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector
with particular directions.
6.2) It emerges from the record that the vendor was required to
Page 13 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
submit an application to the authority concerned for conversion
of the said property from agricultural to non-agricultural use
within a period of six months. However, he preferred the said
application two months after the lapse of the prescribed period,
i.e. on 11.04.2000, and the said application came to be
entertained by the authority concerned on 07.08.2000. The
authority concerned entertained the said application and granted
permission to convert the land from agricultural to non-
agricultural use, pursuant to which an entry was also mutated in
the revenue record. It further emerges from the record that the
original vendor was aggrieved by the said entry mutated in the
revenue record and therefore challenged the same before the
Deputy Collector by way of an appeal seeking cancellation of the
said entry on the ground that the parties concerned had not
complied with the directions of the SSRD in a stricto sensu
manner. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Deputy
Collector after considering and appreciating all the documents
and material available on record and by assigning detailed
reasons. The said order was thereafter assailed before the
Collector by way of a revision application, which also came to be
dismissed. The said orders were further challenged before the
SSRD by way of a revision application.
6.3) It appears that, at the time of entertaining the said revision
application, the SSRD heavily relied upon the non-adherence to
the directions issued in the earlier proceedings. The SSRD opined
that when a specific time period is prescribed in an order, the
Page 14 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
parties are required to strictly adhere to the same and
scrupulously follow the directions in their true spirit and proper
perspective. It reveals from the record that the application for
conversion of the said 34 gunthas of land from agricultural to
non-agricultural use was preferred after the lapse of the
prescribed period and therefore there was delay on the part of
the vendor. Hence, relying upon the earlier order passed by the
authority concerned, the original entry was restored in the
revenue record. The said view adopted by the authority is per se
illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, perverse and not tenable in the eye
of law.
6.4) It is a matter of record that the original vendor was
required to submit the application for conversion of the said
property from agricultural to non-agricultural land because he
was the lawful owner of the said property and the property was
in his occupation, possession, custody and ownership. It is an
admitted position of fact that the vendor was a party before the
authority concerned in the earlier proceedings and therefore it
can safely be said that the vendor was well aware of the
directions issued by the authority in the earlier proceedings. It is
also an admitted position of fact that the vendor submitted the
application after a delay of two months beyond the prescribed
period. However, the authority concerned verified the record and
proceedings and ultimately concluded that there was substance
in the application and adjudicated upon the same by declaring
the said 34 gunthas of land as non-agricultural land, pursuant to
Page 15 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
which an entry to that effect was also mutated in the revenue
record.
6.5) Thereafter, a second round of litigation commenced before
the revenue authorities and the record reveals that the said
proceedings were initiated at the instance of the vendor. The
conduct, approach and behaviour of the vendor itself go to show
that he was aggrieved by the entry mutated in the revenue
record. It is an admitted position of fact that, upon receiving the
sale consideration, he entered into the sale transaction with the
petitioner. He pocketed the amount of sale consideration from
the petitioner and transferred the title, possession and custody
of the property. Therefore, he had no right to raise objections
against the entry mutated in the revenue record. The vendor was
one of the consenting parties who entered into the transaction
with the petitioner.
6.6) The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held that
if any transaction has taken place between the parties in
contravention of the statutory provisions of law, the validity of
such transaction cannot be disputed by the parties who
themselves entered into the transaction. After pocketing a huge
amount of sale consideration, the vendor had no right to raise
objections regarding the validity of the transaction. It is a matter
of record that the second round of litigation was initiated at the
instance of Respondent No. 5 (Vendor). During the course of
submissions, the learned advocate representing the petitioner
Page 16 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
heavily relied upon the decisions rendered by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera vs.
Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State and
Others decided on 20.10.2010 and Mithalal Mukundchand vs.
State of Gujarat and Others decided on 31.01.2013 , and
forcefully submitted that when, at the time of initiation of the
proceedings, the authority had not alleged any fraud or
suppression of material facts, the proceedings were required to
be initiated within a reasonable period of time. Proceedings
initiated after a lapse of three years would certainly not fall
within a reasonable period of time and, solely on that count, such
proceedings were required to be quashed and set aside.
6.7) I have gone through the ratio laid down by this Court in
Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera (supra), more particularly
paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 held as under:
‘’[11] In the judgment in the case between Gujarat Khet Kamdar Union
v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (3) GLR 2044, the Division Bench of this Court
has, while dealing with the issue of initiation of proceedings in exercise
of suo motu powers under Sec. 84C observed, while holding that when
the statute does not prescribe any period of limitation for exercise of
the statutory power then such power must be exercised within a
reasonable period subject to the exception that such a plea would not
be available to a person who is himself guilty of fraud or has
suppressed material facts, observed in Para 12 of the judgment that:
“12. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of
the view that there is considerable force in the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner-Union as well as the
State/Government. As per the settled legal position, when the
statute does not provide for any period of limitation for exercising
a particular power, such power must be exercised within a
reasonable period, subject to the exception that such a plea is not
Page 17 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
available to a person who is himself guilty of fraud or who has
suppressed material facts, but it is equally well settled that what
is reasonable period during which a particular statutory power is
to be exercised would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case and also on the nature of the order to be passed. It is,
therefore, not possible to accept the contention urged on behalf
of the purchasers that the period of limitation stipulated in Sec.
76A of the Act should be taken into consideration for the purpose
of explaining the scope and ambit of ‘reasonable period’ within
which the proceedings under Sec. 84C of the Act must be initiated
to avoid the risk of being set aside on the ground of delay..
…”(Emphasis supplied)
[12] The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the judgment in the case between
Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (3) GLR
2610 has observed in Paras 27 and 28 of the judgment as follows:
“27. Now, it is true that no period for revision is provided in the
Act. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the land-owners
that when the Legislature did not think it fit to prescribe period of
limitation, such power can be exercised ‘at any time’ and no Court
by a ‘judicial fiat’, usurp legislative power and prescribe period of
limitation. It is no doubt true that the statute does not fix period
of limitation within which revisional power should be exercised
under Sec. 34 of the Act. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has not
fixed period of limitation as it had empowered the State
Government to exercise revisional power suo motu. In our
judgment, however, only in such cases i.e. where the period of
limitation is not prescribed that the concept of ‘reasonable time’
can be invoked and power must be exercised within such period.
28. In this connection, it would be profitable to refer to a leading
decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha,
1969 (2) SCC 187. In that case, an application was filed by the
land-owner under Sec. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code,
1879 for converting agricultural land to non-agricultural use. The
permission was granted. The Municipal Committee, however,
objected to such permission and the Commissioner, in purported
exercise of revisional power under Sec. 211 of the Code, set aside
the order passed earlier. When the matter reached this Court, it
was contended by the owners, that though Sec. 211 did not
prescribe period of limitation, revisional powers ought to be
exercised within a reasonable time.”
[13] In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the
judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, 1969
Page 18 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
(2) SCC 187 and others and has observed that the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the said case of Patel Raghav Natha has been reiterated
in several cases. Therefore, it would not be out of place to refer to the
observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to the issue
of exercise of power where no period of limitation is prescribed by the
statute. In Paras 11 and 12 of the judgment in the case of State of
Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court, has
observed thus :
"11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an
order made under Sec. 65 at any time. It is true that there is no
period of limitation prescribed under Sec. 211, but it seems to us
plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and
the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the
facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being
revised.
12. It seems to us that Sec. 65 itself indicates the length of the
reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under
Sec. 211. Under Sec. 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 Secs. 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."
[14] In present case, it is not in dispute that the proceedings have been
initiated after delay of more than about three years, it is also not in
dispute that in present case there is no allegation of fraud and/or
suppression of facts by the petitioner. In present case, it is also not the
case of the respondent-authorities that the authorities were not
aware about the transaction.
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
Page 19 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
proceedings and order cannot be said to have been initiated
within reasonable time inasmuch as undisputedly the notice
under the Act was issued in 2005. The proceedings and the order
are hit by the vice of delay.’’
6.8) I have also gone through the ratio laid down in Mithalal
Mukundchand (supra), more particularly paragraph No. 11, reads
as under:
‘’[11] There is on additional circumstance, which has come on record by
the affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein it has been stated that the
area of the land in question is included in the town planning scheme of
Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority and the State Government
has also issued notification dated 05.09.2008, copy whereof is
produced at Annexure-III, whereby the area which is included in the
town planning scheme has been excluded from the local area as to be
considered for the purpose of bar operating under section 8 and/or
8AA of the Act. It is true that at the relevant point of time, such
notification was not existence but by subsequent circumstances, the
land is included in the town planning scheme and has been excluded
from the local area and therefore, as on today, it cannot be said that
the breach would remain nor it can be said that the land could be used
for agricultural purpose when as per the town planning scheme, the
area is reserved for commercial purpose.‘’
6.9) Admittedly, it is a matter of fact on record that the initial
proceedings had been initiated after a considerable lapse of time
and therefore the above-stated principles of law enunciated by
this Court are squarely applicable to the facts of the present
case. I have gone through the reasons recorded in the orders
passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the Collector. They
have rightly held that there was mala fide intention on the part
of the vendor and the same can easily be discerned from the
documents available on record. At the time of challenging the
entry before the Deputy Collector, the vendor came forward with
Page 20 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
a specific case that the petitioners had miserably failed to comply
with the directions issued by the SSRD in the earlier proceedings
and therefore, as per the order passed by the authority
concerned, the original entry mutated in the revenue record was
required to be restored. While entertaining the said application,
the Deputy Collector thoroughly scrutinized the record and
proceedings and found that it was the duty of the vendor to
submit the application for conversion of the said property into
non-agricultural land within six months from the date of receipt
of the order. Admittedly, the said application was preferred after
the lapse of the prescribed period. Therefore, at the time of
submitting the application before the authority concerned, the
vendor was well aware of the factual position that he had not
strictly adhered to the timeline granted by the authority. Despite
the fact that the delay had occurred due to his own fault in not
submitting the application within the prescribed time frame, he
solely highlighted the said issue before the higher authority for
cancellation of the entry mutated in the revenue record. The said
conduct of the vendor itself crystallizes the position that there
was mala fide intention on his part and that, with the sole
intention of depriving the petitioner of valuable rights in the
property, he acted in a particular manner. The sequence of
events has been described by the Deputy Collector and the
Collector while dismissing the application preferred by the
vendor and, by assigning exhaustive reasons and making caustic
observations regarding the conduct of the vendor, the
proceedings initiated at his instance came to be dismissed at the
Page 21 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
threshold.
6.10) The aforesaid factual aspects were not properly considered
by the SSRD while deciding the revision application preferred at
the instance of the vendor. The SSRD gave undue weightage to
the time limit prescribed in the earlier order and, on account of
non-compliance with the directions within the prescribed period,
allowed the revision application preferred by the vendor. The
said view adopted by the SSRD prima facie appears to be neither
correct nor legal because, while appreciating the documents and
material available on record, the authority concerned ought to
have struck a balance and considered as to whose fault had
resulted in the delay. Apparently, from the face of the record, it
appears that with the sole intention of frustrating the valuable
rights of the petitioner, the vendor intentionally preferred the
application for conversion of the said property from agricultural
to non-agricultural use at a belated stage. However, at the end of
the day, the authority concerned considered the merits of the
application and, by passing a detailed order, declared the said
property as non-agricultural land. Therefore, on the day when the
SSRD decided the revision application, the land in question had in
fact become non-agricultural land and consequently could not
have been treated as fragment property within the meaning of
the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act.
6.11) Thus, it can safely be said that the issue involved before the
Page 22 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/1953/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
authority concerned had virtually become academic. However,
the authority concerned passed the order solely on the ground
that the earlier directions had not been complied with within the
prescribed time. While deciding the matter, the authority was
required to verify the record and proceedings to ascertain as to
whose fault had resulted in the delay. Despite the availability of
clinching documents and material on record, the authority failed
to properly consider and appreciate the merits of the case in its
true spirit and proper perspective, which ultimately led it to an
erroneous conclusion. Therefore, the view adopted by the SSRD
deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present
petition.
7) In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition
succeeds and is hereby allowed . The order dated 11.12.2014
passed by respondent No.1 – SSRD in Revision Application No.
MVV/HKP/Kutch/18/2014 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the order dated 05.03.2009 passed by the Deputy
Collector and the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the District
Collector are restored and upheld. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 23 of 23
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Thu Jul 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 10 03:05:54 IST 2026