Suo motu forfeiture proceedings initiated after unreasonable delay cannot be sustained against bona fide purchasers.

Survey No. 760, admeasuring 6 Acres 8 Gunthas at Village Gochnad, Taluka Sami, District Patan, was Government land. A portion measuring 3 Acres 4 Gunthas, later designated Survey No. 760/2, was allotted in 1976 to Ramji Khetaji Garasiya as restricted/new-tenure land, subject to conditions prohibiting transfer or mortgage without prior permission.

Ramji subsequently mortgaged the land in 1980 without permission, but the proposed breach proceedings were not pursued at that time.

After Ramji’s death, his legal heirs obtained mutation of their names and, in 1998, the Mamlatdar converted the land from new tenure to old tenure.

The heirs thereafter sold the land to Kamabhai Harkhabhai Chaudhary in 2001; it was later transferred to his son Bhagwanbhai Chaudhary and ultimately purchased by Ismailbhai Sulemanbhai Memon through a registered sale deed dated 19 January 2010. The purchaser’s name was mutated and certified in the revenue record.

In 2013, approximately 23 years after the mortgage transaction, the Deputy Collector initiated suo motu breach proceedings and ordered forfeiture of the land to the Government. The purchaser, whose name was already recorded in the revenue record, was not joined or served in those proceedings.

After successive proceedings before the Collector and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, the forfeiture order was confirmed. The purchaser challenged those orders in Special Civil Application No. 11994 of 2018, while the original allottee’s heirs challenged the same orders and claimed re-grant in Special Civil Application No. 13970 of 2018.

The Court applied the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the revenue-law principles governing restricted/new-tenure land, breach of allotment conditions, forfeiture and suo motu revisional powers.

It held that where the statute does not prescribe a limitation period, suo motu or revisional powers must nevertheless be exercised within a reasonable time; this principle was drawn from State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1969) 2 SCC 187, which held that statutory revisional power cannot be exercised indefinitely.

The Court also relied on Ravjibhai Mavji Jogani v. State of Gujarat, 2000 JX (Guj) 2630, and Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya v. State of Gujarat, 2013 (2) GLR 1788, for the rule that even allegedly void transactions cannot ordinarily be unsettled after an unreasonable delay.

It further relied on Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao, as quoted in State of Gujarat v. Jitendrasinh Jagmalsinh Sodha, for the principle that delayed exercise of revisional power creates uncertainty and cannot ordinarily defeat accrued third-party rights.

Under the principles of natural justice and Article 14, as explained in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, a person whose civil or proprietary rights may be adversely affected must receive notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Court also applied the equitable principle that a person who has sold property and received the consideration cannot subsequently seek advantage from the consequences of that transaction, relying on Rabari Gokalbhai Jaksibhai v. State of Gujarat and Navuji Lalji Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2011 (4) GLR 3636.

The Court held that the alleged breach arose from the 1980 mortgage, whereas suo motu proceedings were commenced only in 2013, after a delay of approximately 23 years, and after the land had undergone conversion of tenure and multiple registered transfers.

Such an unexplained delay was held to be beyond a reasonable period, particularly because third-party rights had crystallised and the purchaser had been in possession pursuant to a registered sale deed.

The Court further found that the purchaser was a bona fide subsequent purchaser whose name was recorded in the revenue record, yet he was not impleaded or heard before forfeiture.

Since the forfeiture directly affected his proprietary rights, the proceedings violated natural justice.

The Court also treated the 1998 conversion from new tenure to old tenure as removing the restrictions attached to the land, and therefore concluded that the subsequent transactions could not be treated as breaches of the original restricted-tenure conditions.

Finally, the original allottee’s heirs, having sold the land and retained the sale consideration, could not claim re-grant merely because the Government later ordered forfeiture; permitting such a claim would allow them to benefit from their own transaction and wrong.

The Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the SSRD order dated 04/19 May 2018, the Collector’s order dated 24 November 2017, and the Deputy Collector’s orders dated 29 April 2013 and 19 November 2013.

It directed restoration of Entry No. 1787 relating to the registered sale deed dated 19 January 2010 in favour of Ismailbhai Sulemanbhai Memon.

Special Civil Application No. 13970 of 2018, filed by the legal heirs of the original allottee seeking re-grant, was rejected.

The Court held that the heirs had no surviving enforceable claim after selling the land and receiving the sale consideration.