Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhikhabhai Mahadevbhai Rabari, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court, challenging the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's Revision Application No. 3 of 2012 on the ground of delay. The revision was filed against an order dated 16.08.1982 passed by the Deputy Collector in suo-motu proceedings (KON/Case No. 1693 of 1982), whereby the mutation entry in favor of the petitioner, based on a registered sale deed dated 12.05.1982 for Survey No. 64, was cancelled for alleged breach of Sections 7 and 9 of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act. The petitioner sought quashing of the revisional order and restoration of the revision for hearing on merits. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the revisional authority had dismissed the revision solely on limitation without examining the merits. The court noted that the delay was not inordinate and the petitioner had provided an explanation. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Special Secretary to decide the revision application afresh on merits within a stipulated time, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Revision Application - Delay Condonation - Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act, 1947, Sections 7 and 9 - The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) rejecting his Revision Application No. 3 of 2012 on the ground of delay. The High Court held that the revisional authority ought to have considered the merits of the case and not dismissed the revision solely on limitation, especially when the delay was not inordinate and the petitioner had a valid explanation. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the petitioner's Revision Application solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), and directed the Special Secretary to decide the Revision Application No. 3 of 2012 afresh on its own merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Law Points
- Limitation
- Revision Application
- Delay Condonation
- Suo-motu Proceedings
- Fragmentation Act
