Suo Motu Revisional Powers Must Be Exercised Within a Reasonable Time Even for Void Transactions

The petitioners are subsequent purchasers of land bearing Survey No. 74/1 in Mahuva village.

The original holder, Bhanabhai Kikabhai, was declared a protected tenant in 1983.

The land was converted from new tenure to old tenure in 2006 after payment of a premium (Entry No. 1604).

Bhanabhai sold the land to intermediate purchasers in 2006 (Entry No. 1644), who then sold it to the petitioners in 2011 (Entry No. 1868).

When the petitioners applied for Non-Agricultural (NA) permission, the Mamlatdar opined that the original holder was "Adivasi" (Scheduled Tribe), making the transfers a violation of Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (GLRC) due to lack of prior permission.

Consequently, the Assistant Collector initiated suo motu proceedings in 2013 and passed an order on 31.01.2015, cancelling the entries, vesting the land in the Government, and imposing a fine.

Whether the original landholder belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, thereby attracting the restrictions under Section 73AA of the GLRC.

Whether the revenue authority can exercise suo motu revisional powers after a significant lapse of time (two to seven years) to unsettle certified entries and registered sale deeds.

Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, which restricts the transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals without prior sanction.

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

The principle from Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71 and Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya v. State of Gujarat (2013) 2 GLR 1788, which hold that even void transactions cannot be annulled after a long lapse of time as it creates third-party equities.

The doctrine from Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 regarding the bypass of alternative remedies.

The court found that the revenue authority acted on a flawed factual assumption; evidence including school leaving certificates and Government Circulars proved the original holder was "Hindu Parghi" (Bhavnagari Koli Patel) and not from a Scheduled Tribe.

The court reasoned that Section 73AA was not applicable because the original holder was not a tribal.

The court criticized the Assistant Collector for initiating suo motu revision in 2013 against entries made in 2007 and 2011.

Applying the Raghav Natha doctrine, the court held that the delay of over two years (and up to seven years for the first transaction) was unreasonable.

The court noted that the revenue records did not show any restrictions at the time of purchase, and unsettling such transactions after the petitioners had altered their position would be arbitrary and a "fraud upon the statute".

The court allowed the petition and quashed the Assistant Collector’s order dated 31.01.2015.

The court ordered the restoration of Entry No. 1644 and Entry No. 1868 in the revenue records, effectively validating the petitioners' ownership.