Suo motu correction of void-ab-initio allotments is not barred by reasonable-time limits.

The appellants owned land adjoining Government waste land bearing Survey No. 141/1 paiki.

In 1996, the Deputy Collector allotted each appellant approximately one acre from that survey for agricultural use, on payment of Rs. 14,000; revenue entries were made and possession was handed over.

The Collector issued show-cause notices on 23 December 1997 and, by order dated 10 November 2008, set aside the allotments on the grounds that the Deputy Collector lacked authority and the allotments violated the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

The SSRD rejected the appellants’ revisions, and the learned Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions.

The appellants challenged that decision in these connected appeals, relying, among other things, on delay in the suo motu proceedings and the Government policy applicable when the allotments were made.

Whether the Collector’s suo motu proceedings were initiated after an unreasonable period, particularly given that the allotment order was made in 1996 and the Collector’s decision followed in 2008?

Whether the Deputy Collector’s allotments were contrary to the applicable Government policy and the Fragmentation Act, 1947, and were therefore liable to be set aside?

Whether the Collector’s reliance on the Government Resolution dated 1 November 2003 was impermissibly retrospective?

The court applied the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and the Government Resolution dated 15 February 1989 governing the allotment of Government waste land; it treated the 1 November 2003 Resolution as consolidating earlier resolutions and not changing the relevant policy.

It recognised the principle, relying on State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, AIR 1969 SC 1297, that suo motu powers ordinarily must be exercised within a reasonable time.

The court further held that this time-limit principle would not bar proceedings in the present case because the allotment order was, in its view, a nullity, non est and void ab initio.

The court found that the allotments were portions of a large Government survey parcel, stated in its discussion to measure approximately 175 acres and 5 gunthas, rather than a qualifying fragment of land.

It concluded that the Deputy Collector had misread the 1989 Resolution by treating the parcel as eligible for allotment merely because it adjoined the appellants’ lands, and that the allotments contravened the applicable policy and the Fragmentation Act.

On delay, the court focused on the date the proceedings were initiated: the show-cause notice was issued about one year and six months after the 17 May 1996 allotment order, which it considered prompt once the discrepancy came to the authorities’ notice.

Although the Collector’s final order was made in 2008, the court did not treat the interval between notice and final order as making the initiation unreasonable.

It also rejected the retrospectivity objection because it found that the relevant policy was already contained in the 1989 Resolution.

It dismissed all the appeals, discharged the notices, vacated interim relief and disposed of the connected applications.