Suo motu revisional powers over new-tenure land must be exercised within reasonable time.

The dispute concerned Survey No. 133/1, admeasuring 1 Acre 14 Guntha, situated at Village Nani, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha, recorded as new-tenure land.

The land had originally been granted to the petitioners’ ancestor, Rabari Jalabhai Ramabhai. Successive mutation entries recorded the names of the heirs, including Entry No. 295 certified on 6 February 1964 and Entries Nos. 652 and 653 certified on 17 June 1988. Following a family arrangement and partition among the brothers, Entry No. 654 was mutated on 21 March 1988.

After more than sixteen years, the Deputy Collector initiated suo motu proceedings on the ground that the partition of new-tenure land had taken place without prior permission of the competent authority.

By order dated 21 December 2004, the land was ordered to be forfeited to the State Government. The Collector dismissed the petitioners’ appeal on 22 August 2005, and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, dismissed their revision on 3 January 2012.

Whether the revenue authorities could exercise suo motu/revisional powers under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, and disturb the certified mutation entry and family partition after an unexplained delay of more than sixteen years.

Whether partition of the new-tenure land among the original family members, without prior permission, constituted a breach warranting forfeiture of the land to the State Government.

The Court applied Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, holding that although the provision does not prescribe a limitation period for suo motu or revisional action, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time; statutory silence does not authorise reopening settled transactions after an unreasonable delay.

This principle was derived principally from State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1969) 2 SCC 187, and reiterated in Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew, (2005) 7 SCC 667, and Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 2 GLR 1788.

The Court also considered the alleged breach of restrictions applicable to new-tenure land, including the State’s policy communication dated 30 October 2002, which treated family partition of new and impartible land in the specified circumstances as not constituting a breach.

The Court found that the partition entry was made in 1988 and had remained operative while the petitioners continued in possession and cultivated the land. The authorities nevertheless commenced proceedings only in 2004, after approximately sixteen years, without any legally sufficient justification for the delay.

Applying the reasonable-time doctrine under Section 211 and Patel Raghav Natha, the Court held that the belated exercise of revisional power unlawfully unsettled a long-standing and certified revenue position.

The Court further noted that the transaction was an internal family partition among the heirs, with no creation of third-party rights or commercial transfer, and that the State’s 30 October 2002 policy communication supported treating such family distribution as outside the alleged breach in the present circumstances.

The orders dated 21 December 2004 of the Deputy Collector, 22 August 2005 of the District Collector, and 3 January 2012 of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, were quashed and set aside.

Entry No. 654 dated 21 March 1988 was directed to be restored to the revenue record. The petition was allowed and the Rule was made absolute to that extent.