Revisional powers under RTS proceedings cannot be exercised after inordinate delay or to adjudicate tenancy law violations.

The petitioners are descendants of Late Shri Harakhjibhai Thakkar, who held agricultural land in Kolivada since 1964.

Applicant No. 2 (Kamlaben) purchased several parcels of agricultural land in Village Chadiyana between 1995 and 1996.

These lands were later distributed among her heirs via family partition in 1999.

In 2006—over a decade after the initial transactions—the Deputy Collector requested the District Collector to initiate suo motu revision proceedings to cancel the mutation entries, alleging that the lands were purchased by non-agriculturists in violation of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act.

The District Collector cancelled the entries on 22.01.2007 and directed proceedings under Section 84(C).

This order was upheld by the Additional Secretary (Appeals) on 06.03.2012.

The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court on grounds of inordinate delay and jurisdictional error.

1. Whether the revenue authorities could exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction after an inordinate delay of more than 10 years in the absence of a prescribed limitation period.

2. Whether the Collector, while exercising powers under the Land Revenue Rules (RTS proceedings), has the jurisdiction to decide the status of a person as an agriculturist or order proceedings for breach of the Tenancy Act.

The court applied Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, which grants the Collector revisional powers but requires them to be exercised within a "reasonable period".

It relied on State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha [1969 (2) SCC 187], establishing that even void transactions must be challenged within a reasonable time.

The court also invoked Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsingh Rao [(2015) 3 SCC 695], which holds that fraud does not extend the time for correction to infinity.

The court invoked Evergreen Apartment Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. v. Special Secretary (Appeals), which prohibits the "cross-utilization" of powers, meaning RTS authorities cannot decide matters reserved for Tenancy Act authorities.

The Court observed that while Rule 108(6) does not prescribe a specific limitation, the principle of "reasonable time" is mandatory to prevent endless uncertainty in human affairs.

In this case, the delay of 11 years in initiating suo motu proceedings was deemed unreasonable and perversely long.

The Court rejected the State’s argument regarding fraud, noting that even if fraud is suspected, the power must be exercised within a reasonable period from the discovery of said fraud, which the State failed to justify here.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by using RTS proceedings (which are primarily fiscal and for record-keeping) to adjudicate substantive issues under the Tenancy Act.

The status of a person as an agriculturist must be determined by the competent authority under the Tenancy Act, not through a mutation entry review.

The Court held that the initiation of suo motu proceedings after a decade was hit by the vice of delay and was procedurally improper.

The Court directed the restoration of all cancelled mutation entries, clarifying that revenue authorities must follow established dictums regarding "reasonable time" and cannot cross-utilize powers under different enactments to unsettle long-standing records.

Rule made absolute.