Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Morarji Ratnshi Tatariya Suthar, filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the District Collector, Kutch, which set aside mutation entries made in his favour. The dispute pertains to agricultural land in village Bhuj, Kutch. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the land from the original tenant, Jivabhai, under a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1978. Based on this sale deed, mutation entry No. 1356 was made in the revenue records on 22.09.1981. However, the District Collector, Kutch, initiated suo motu revision proceedings under Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Tenancy Act) on the ground that the sale was in violation of Section 43 of the Act, which prohibits transfer of land purchased by a tenant within a specified period. The Collector, by order dated 01.10.2014, set aside the mutation entry. The petitioner's revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was dismissed on 27.03.2017. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The main legal issue was whether the Collector had jurisdiction to initiate revision after a delay of about 30 years. The petitioner argued that the power under Section 110 must be exercised within a reasonable period and that the delay of 30 years was fatal. The respondents contended that the provision does not prescribe any limitation and that the power can be exercised whenever illegality comes to light. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that Section 110 of the Tenancy Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for exercising suo motu revisional power. The Court observed that the mutation entry was based on a sale deed that was clearly in violation of Section 43 of the Act, as the land was purchased by a tenant and transferred within the prohibited period. The Court further noted that the Collector and the Tribunal had concurrently found the entry to be illegal. The High Court held that in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. The Court found no such infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed, and the orders of the Collector and the Tribunal were upheld.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Suo Motu Revision - Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Limitation - The Collector has power to initiate revision suo motu under Section 110 even after a long delay to correct illegal mutation entries that were made in contravention of the Act. The provision does not prescribe any period of limitation for exercising such power. (Paras 5-10) B) Tenancy Law - Mutation Entry - Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Illegal Transfer - Mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner were based on a sale deed executed in violation of Section 43 of the Act (restriction on transfer of land purchased by a tenant). The Collector and Tribunal rightly set aside such entries. (Paras 11-15) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Collector and the Tribunal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the findings were based on material on record and no interference was warranted. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Collector has jurisdiction to initiate suo motu revision proceedings under Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 after a long delay of about 30 years to set aside mutation entries made in violation of the Act?
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The orders dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and dated 01.10.2014 passed by the District Collector, Kutch, are upheld.
Law Points
- Suo motu revision power under Section 110 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 is not barred by limitation
- Collector can initiate proceedings to correct illegal mutation entries even after 30 years
- Writ court under Article 226 should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or without jurisdiction
