Suo motu revisional powers must be exercised within reasonable time, even for allegedly non-est orders.

The petitioner purchased land bearing Survey No./Block No. 236 in Village Kundal, Sanand, via a registered Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008

On 09.07.2012, the petitioner applied for conversion of 4047 sq. meters of said land for non-agricultural (NA) use under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879

The Taluka Development Officer (TDO) granted the NA permission on 28.09.2012

Subsequently, the District Development Officer (DDO) requested the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) to initiate suo-motu proceedings to set aside the TDO’s order.

The SSRD issued a notice in 2016 and passed the impugned order on 15.02.2018, quashing the NA permission after a delay of nearly five years

1. Whether the SSRD was justified in exercising suo-motu revisional powers after an inordinate delay of approximately five years from the date of the original order

2. Whether the TDO acted without jurisdiction in granting NA permission for a subdivided parcel of land

The court primarily applied Section 211 and Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, regarding the revision of revenue orders and NA permission

State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (AIR 1969 SC 1297), which established that revisional powers must be exercised within a "reasonable time," typically interpreted as within a few months where Section 65 is involved

Government Resolutions dated 01.07.2008 and 08.04.2011, which delegate powers to the TDO for NA permissions based on land size and village population

The court observed that the suo-motu proceedings were initiated nearly three-and-a-half years after the TDO's order and concluded after five years

Following the ratio in Patel Raghav Natha, the court held that such a delay is unreasonable, especially in NA matters where the occupant may have invested funds in development

The court rejected the State's argument that the TDO's order was a "nullity" (which would theoretically exempt it from the 'reasonable time' rule), noting that the Deputy Collector had already legally permitted the partition of the land via an order dated 15.03.2013

Since the petitioner's share was less than one acre, the TDO possessed the requisite jurisdiction under the Government Resolution dated 08.04.2011

Any procedural lapses were deemed mere irregularities rather than a total lack of jurisdiction

The petition was allowed, the SSRD’s order dated 15.02.2018 was quashed, and the TDO’s order dated 28.09.2012 was restored. Rule was made absolute