1. The State of Gujarat has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.11.1999, passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.5 of 1996, whereby, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order dated 31.05.1995 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar, confirming the order dated 30.07.1993, passed by the Assistant Collector, Jamnagar, where under, the Assistant Collector has exercised suo-moto powers of revision and passed the order for removal of respondent from the occupation of land bearing survey No.167, admeasuring 2 Acre 34 Guntha, situated at Village- Sumra, Taluka: Dhrol under Section 75 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy, Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (for short “the Ordinance”), on the ground that the sale transaction, in favour of the respondents, was in breach of the provision of Section 54 of the Ordinance.
2. Learned AGP Ms.Pathak submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error in setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below on the ground that the suo-moto powers could not have been exercised after delay of about five years. She submitted that since the original transaction was void and invalid, the delay in exercise of suo-moto revisional power would not come in the way of the authorities, especially, when there is no dispute about the fact that the respondents were non-agriculturist. She further submitted that the transaction took place on 11.06.1987, entry was made in the revenue record on 12.08.1988 and the suo-moto powers came to be exercised in the year 1993. When it came to the knowledge of the authority that the said transaction was in contravention of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Assistant Collector, Jamnagar was justified in taking action under Section 75 of the Ordinance. She further submitted that if the competent authority, in such case, does not take any action, after having knowledge of such invalid transaction, then it would frustrate the main purpose of the Ordinance of imposing restriction on the transaction in favour of a non- agriculturist. She submitted that though there was delay in initiating proceedings under the Ordinance, the Assistant Collector was well within the powers to take action under Section 75 of the Ordinance since the sale transaction was void and invalid from its inception and therefore, no illegality is committed by the authority in removing the respondents from the land.
3.0 In reply to the submissions of learned AGP, learned advocate for respondent submitted that entry in the revenue record was made on 12.08.1988 and virtually, after a period of five years, the competent authority took suo-moto action in the form of revision. He submitted that it may be that the transaction was in contravention of Section 54 of the Ordinance but, it was incumbent on the part of the authority to initiate suo-moto proceedings within a reasonable time. He further submitted that between 1988 to 1993, i.e. a period of five years, rights came to be accrued in favour respondents. Hence, the respondents, being a bona fide purchasers, started cultivating the land. The orders of the authorities are contrary to the settled principle of law, as regards the exercise of the suo-moto powers, after unreasonably long period. As per his submission, suo- moto powers of revision could be exercised within a period of one year only, as held by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. The Assistant Collector and Collector have exercised powers of suo-moto revision, after an unreasonable delay of five years and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. He, therefore, submitted that no interference of this Court is called for.
3.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Jadeja has relied upon the decision in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Amrutlal Hansrajbhai reported in 2008(5) GLR 4006. In the said case, similar issue under the provisions of the Ordinance was examined and this Court held that though the transaction was in contravention of Section 54 of the Ordinance, still, the order passed by the Tribunal does not require interference as the Assistant Collector exercised suo- moto powers of revision, after an unreasonable delay.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Jadeja has also relied upon the decision in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Shree Sachin Udyognagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. reported in 2004(1) GLR 381. In that case, the issue was the same as regards exercise of suo-moto powers after a long delay. In that case, suo-moto powers were sought to be exercised by the Mamlatdar under Section 84(c) of the Bombay Land Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 after an unreasonably long period. Hence, this Court did not approve exercise of the suo-moto powers under Section 84(c) of the said Act after an unreasonably long period.
3.3 Similar issue was decided by this Court in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2011(2) GLR 1676. In that case, the transaction was under the Ordinance, like the present case, and though it was found that the transaction was in violation of the very same Ordinance, the authority took action after a long delay of seventeen years. From the said decision, Para-21 is reproduced hereunder:-
“21. In light of the aforesaid facts of present case, we are of the view that while the conclusion and the decision of the the competent and appellate authority holding the transaction in question as void, is in consonance with the provisions of the Ordinance and cannot be faulted, in the interest of justice and equity, it also ought not be overlooked that the impugned action in exercise of the power under Section 75 of the Ordinance to summarily evict the petitioner, after having allowed the transaction to remain alive for 17 years not only ignores the wide chasm between the date of transaction and the dates of the notice and the order, but it also overlooks the fact that the petitioner has continued to put the land to use for agricultural purpose and has not changed the status and nature of the land and that he has also incurred expenditure to improve the quality of soil and invested further amounts for betterment of the land in question. The figures of such expenditure by the petitioner are not available on record, however the respondents have not disputed the said factual assertion by the petitioner."
The Division Bench of this Court, after considering many other decisions, has held that even if the original transaction is in contravention of the Act, the action of taking such transaction in suo-moto revision, cannot be allowed to stand after a long delay.
4. As stated above, in the present case, the Assistant Collector had initiated suo-moto powers, after a period of five years. The Tribunal, therefore, has not committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector on the ground that the authorities below could not have exercised suo-moto powers, after an unreasonably long period. Considering the facts of the case and the law laid down by this Court, in my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the revision application filed by the respondent and in setting aside the order of the Collector and the Assistant Collector. The petition is devoid of any merits and is required to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed.
..mitesh..
[C.L.SONI, J.]