Allowed

Thakor Jinabhai Tailor v. State of Gujarat Thro Secretary

Gujarat HC11 Jun 2014SCA/7570/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Civil Application challenged an impugned order cancelling land registry entries due to alleged violations of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court held that revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable period, especially when there is no objection from other heirs, and quashed the orders canceling the entries, restoring them.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders cancelling entries no. 1503 and 2849 are quashed; entries restored. Rule made absolute.

Thakor Jinabhai Tailor Vs State of Gujarat Thro Secretary — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/7570/2011 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7570 of 2011

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

`HO` `==`	`NOURABLE` `=========`	`MR.JUSTICE` `==========`	`RA` `===`	`JESH` `=====`	`H.SHUKLA` `==========`	`:` `=====`	`Sd/-` `===========`
`1`	`Whether` `be allow`	`Reporters` `ed to see`	`of` `the`	`Loc` `jud`	`al Papers` `gment ?`	`may`	`NO`
`2`	`To be` `not ?`	`referred`	`to`	`the`	`Reporter`	`or`	`NO`
`3`	`Whether` `the fair`	`their Lo` `copy of t`	`rds` `he`	`hips` `judg`	`wish to` `ment ?`	`see`	`NO`
`4`	`Whether`	`this`	`ca`	`se`	`involves`	`a`
	`substant` `interpre`	`ial quest` `tation of`	`ion` `th`	`of` `e Co`	`law as to` `nstitution`	`the` `of`	`NO`
	`India,` `thereund`	`1950 or` `er ?`		`any`	`order m`	`ade`
`5`	`Whether` `civil ju`	`it is to` `dge ?`	`be`	`circ`	`ulated to`	`the`	`NO`

¶6

=======================================================

¶7

THAKOR JINABHAI TAILOR....Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & 2....Respondent(s)

¶10

=======================================================

¶11

Appearance:

¶12

MR NV GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT VYAS AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.,3.1-3.4, 3.6-3.7
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3.5

¶13

=======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶15

Date : 11/06/2014

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner

¶18

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

¶19

Page 1 of 7

¶20

C/SCA/7570/2011 JUDGMENT

¶21

India for the prayer inter alia that the impugned
order passed by the Collector in RTS Revision
Case/Kamrej/Registration No.75/VAV/1513/95 dated
06.10.1995 and the order passed by the Secretary,
Revenue Department (Appeals), Gujarat State at
Ahmedabad in RTS Revision Application No.150/1997
dated 10.03.2011 may be quashed and set aside on
the grounds stated in the petition.

¶22

2.Heard learned advocate, Shri N.V. Gandhi for the
petitioner and learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for
the respondent nos.1 and 2. None appears for the
respondent no.3.

¶23

3.Learned advocate, Shri Gandhi has referred to the
papers and submitted that as stated in the
petition, entry no.1503 is dated 22.06.1974 and
subsequent entry no.2849 is dated 15.10.1988
entering the name of deceased, Jinabhai, who was
the co-owner of the property and same is sought to
be taken in revision after such a long lapse of
time. Learned advocate, Shri Gandhi, however,
referred to the papers and submitted that as per
the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code,
1879 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1879)
read with Rule 108, the powers conferred cannot be

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

C/SCA/7570/2011 JUDGMENT

¶26

exercised beyond reasonable period. Learned
advocate, Shri Gandhi submitted that in fact, such
revisional power could be exercised within a
reasonable period but it cannot be exercised after
such a long lase of time. He referred to and
relied upon the observations made by the high

¶27

court in a judgment in case ofValjibhai

¶28

Jagjivanbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
2005 (3) GLR 1853. Learned advocate, Shri Gandhi
has stated that even other co-owners and heirs
have no objection, for which, writing/document is
produced at Annexure-H, which clearly stating that
they have no objection if the entries as stated
are made. He therefore, submitted that the
exercise of revisional powers is bad and the entry
nos.1503 and 2849 may be ordered to be restored.

¶29

4.Learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas has made feeble
attempt to point out that all throughout the name
of one of the sons of the original owner was shown
and, thereafter, without any document or
registration, the name of another so called co-
owner, Shri Jinabhai is sought to be added. He
therefore submitted that appropriate order may be
passed.

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

C/SCA/7570/2011 JUDGMENT

¶32

5. In view of this rival submissions, it is required to be considered, whether the present petition can be entertained or not.

¶33

6.From the facts of the case, it appears that the
entries which are sought to be cancelled in
purported exercise of powers in revision after
such a long lapse of time, could be justified.
There are two entries, which have made. Entry
no.1503 dated 22.06.1974 is made and, thereafter
consequential entry no.2849 dated 15.10.1988 is
made for the purpose of entering the name of other
co-owners viz., Jinabhai. As recorded in the
impugned order of the Special Secretary (Appeals)
at Annexure-C, originally land belonged to the
original owner and there were heirs of Ambaben as
stated in the pedigree at Annexure-D. After the
death of Ambaben, the name of one of the heirs,
Jinaben is sought to be added and same is taken in
revision on the alleged ground of violation of
Stamp Act under the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act. It is evident that entry is made for
the co-owner, who is one of the heirs entitled to
the share in the land in question. As per the
consent agreement produced at Annexure-H, other

¶34

Page 4 of 7

¶35

C/SCA/7570/2011 JUDGMENT

¶36

heirs have also stated that the entries have been

¶37

made correctly and they have no objection. It is
in this background, one fails to understand how
the power of revision could be exercised after
such long period. The exercise of powers under the
Code, 1879 has to be exercised within a reasonable
period. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
judicial pronouncement has considered this aspect.

¶38

7. Further what could be a reasonable period has also been considered in a judgment in case of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil

¶39

& Ors. Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors.,

¶40

reported in (2009) 9 SCC 353 and also in a
judgment in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel
Raghav Natha & Ors., reported in 1969 GLR 992.

¶41

8. The Hon’ble Division bench of the high court in a

¶42

judgment in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya
& Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in
2013 (2) GLR 1788 has referred to this aspect of
reasonable period and exercise of such powers. It
has been observed,

¶43

“It must be fairly said that if the statute
does not prescribe time limit for exercise
of revisional powers, it does not mean that
such powers can be exercised at any point

¶44

Page 5 of 7

¶45

C/SCA/7570/2011 JUDGMENT

¶46

of time even if there is a breach of
Section 43 of the Act, which is a provision
which relates to a new tenure land, rather
it should be exercised within a reasonable
period of time. It is so because the law
does not expect a settled thing to be
unsettled after a long lapse of time. It is
clear from various judgments of the Supreme
Court that where a statutory provision for
exercise of any suo motu powers of revision
does not prescribe any limitation, the
powers must be exercised within a
reasonable period of time even in the case
of transaction which would be termed as
void transaction.”

¶47

9.Therefore considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, where only entry is made, which is
not even objected by other heirs, it could not
have been sought to be cancelled in exercise of
revisional powers for the alleged breach of any
provision regarding Registration Act. Therefore,
the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶48

10.In the circumstances, the present petition stands
allowed in terms of Para No.6(A) and 6(B). The
impugned order passed by the Collector in RTS
RevisionCase/Kamrej/RegistrationNo.
75/VAV/1513/95 dated 06.10.1995 and the order
passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department

¶49

Page 6 of 7

¶50

C/SCA/7570/2011 JUDGMENT

¶51

(Appeals), Gujarat State at Ahmedabad in RTS
Revision Application No.150/1997 dated 10.03.2011
are hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly,
entry no.1503 dated 22.06.1974 and succession
entry no.2849 dated 15.10.1988 with regard to the
land in question are ordered to be restored. Rule
is made absolute.

¶52

Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

¶53

Gautam

¶54

Page 7 of 7

Thakor Jinabhai Tailor v. State of Gujarat Thro Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakor Jinabhai Tailor v. State of Gujarat Thro Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heirs of K G Tripathi- Since Decd. through Legal Vs State of Gujarat

Gautamprasad K Tripathi Decd. through Legal Heirs & Vs State of Gujarat

Mahendraprasad D Tripathi Decd. through Legal Heirs & Vs State of Gujarat

Mansurbhai Dehabhai Harijan-Dec. Vs State of Gujarat

Lahlubhai Motibhai Pawar Since Decd. through Legal Vs State of Gujarat

Udaji Kalaji Vs President -Gujarat Revenue Tribunal