Suo motu revisional power must be exercised within reasonable time; twenty-two-year delay for breach of condition is impermissible.

The land in question (Survey No. 24 pk) was originally allotted to Ranchhodbhai Laxmanbhai on a permanent basis by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 05.05.1958

Ranchhodbhai cultivated the land until 12.05.1980, when he sold it to the father of the petitioners via a registered sale deed

The petitioners remained in possession and carried out agricultural activities for over 22 years before the Mamlatdar, on 21.02.2002, proposed initiating action for breach of tenure conditions

Consequently, the Deputy Collector issued a notice under Section 68 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and subsequently ordered the confiscation of the land to the Government on 25.07.2002

This order was upheld by the Collector on 21.04.2003 and the Secretary (Revision) on 09.01.2007

The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court, asserting bonafide purchase and gross delay in the initiation of proceedings

The court primarily relied on the principle that statutory powers, even where no limitation period is prescribed, must be exercised within a "reasonable time," as established in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 187

This doctrine was further supported by Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71

Additionally, the court applied the Government Resolutions dated 20.12.2006 and 04.07.2008, which mandate that new tenure land used for agricultural purposes for more than 15 years is eligible for conversion to old tenure

The court also followed the precedent in Bhana Teja Dhila v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (SCA No. 3518/2010), which held that authorities must regularize tenure when continuous possession exceeds 15 years

The court found that the revenue authorities acted arbitrarily by initiating proceedings in 2002 for a transaction that occurred in 1980

Applying the Patel Raghav Natha precedent, the court held that a 22-year delay is far beyond the "reasonable time" permitted for exercising revisional or suo motu powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code

The court observed that the petitioners had been in peaceful possession and had their names reflected in the pani-patrak (revenue records) for decades without objection from the State

Furthermore, the court noted that under relevant Government Resolutions, it was the Mamlatdar’s responsibility to automatically convert the land from new tenure to old tenure after 15 years of continuous possession; the failure of the officer to do so while later alleging a breach of condition was deemed an act of "sheer arbitrariness"

The court also factored in the petitioners' undertaking to continue agricultural activities for another ten years as a basis for equitable relief

The court held that the 22-year delay in initiating proceedings was fatal to the State's case

The revenue authorities were directed to mutate the petitioners' names as owners and occupiers within four weeks

However, the court ordered that the land be treated as "new tenure" for a further period of ten years as per the petitioners' undertaking

Rule was made absolute