After 59 Years, Gujarat HC Quashes Collector’s Bid To Reopen Family’s 1961 Land Entries As Unreasonably Late

The petitioners’ father purchased the subject agricultural land in 1961, and Revenue Entry No. 160 was mutated and certified that year. Subsequent entries recorded inheritance, relinquishment and partition of the land.

In 2020, after the petitioner sought non-agricultural use permission, the District Collector issued a show-cause notice under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, read with Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949. The notice alleged a breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance and proposed suo motu revision of entries dating from 1961 to 1990.

The petitioners challenged the notice under Article 226, principally on the grounds of unreasonable delay and lack of jurisdiction; the State argued that the petition was premature because the petitioners could respond to the notice.

Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, and Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, were the provisions invoked in the notice.

Relying on Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, (1997) 6 SCC 71, the Court applied the principle that, even where the statute prescribes no specific limitation period, suo motu power must be exercised within a reasonable time.

Under State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363, a writ petition may be entertained despite an alternative remedy where the challenge raises a jurisdictional question that the statutory authority cannot determine.

The Collector’s notice sought to reopen entries stemming from a 1961 transaction, approximately 59 years after the original entry. Applying the reasonable-time principle, the Court held that this delay was inordinate and could not constitute a reasonable exercise of suo motu power.

Because the challenge concerned whether the Collector could act after such delay, it raised a jurisdictional question; the availability of an opportunity to reply to the notice therefore did not bar the Court from intervening.

It allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the notice dated 5 June 2020 in RTS/Revision Case No. 7 of 2020, Bhavnagar; the Rule was made absolute.