Arvindbhai Thakorbhai Mehta vs Mamlatdar And Agricultural Lands
12 June, 2023
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9545 of 2023
Facts
The name of the petitioner was registered in the revenue record in respect of a village which came to be certified after due procedure under Section 135(D) of the Land Revenue Code. That the said land came to be transferred by a registered sale deed and mutation entry No.1973 dated 19.6.2004 came to be effected on the basis of the said sale deed and the said entry also came to be certified by the Mamlatdar after due proceedings under Section 135(D) of the Land Revenue Code which invoked a duty on the village accountant to enter in register every report made to him under section 135(C).
The Mamlatdar & ALT (Tenancy), initiated proceedings and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner herein. The petitioner, thereafter, by his reply pointed out the factual situation and submitted that similar notice had been issued to the petitioner earlier also in respect of another land held by him which came to be challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.10892 of 2022 and by an order the Court had quashed and set aside the said notice on the ground that the proceedings had been initiated beyond a reasonable period of time. It was further submitted that the present proceedings were also initiated after a period of almost 40 years without any valid reasons and therefore, the same ought to be dropped.Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.
The advocate for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner came to be mutated which came to be duly certified by the . He further submitted that by a registered sale deed, the land in question came to be sold to other persons. A mutation entry to that effect was also entered into the revenue records. He submitted that the petitioner had nothing to do with the land in question.
Judgement
The Court, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation v. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & Ors. [(2004) 12 SCC 670] that the revenue authorities cannot initiate proceedings beyond a reasonable period of time. In the present case, the exercise had been initiated after a period of almost 40 years without any plausible explanation or reasons in the impugned notices.
Hence, in view of this, the impugned notices issued to the petitioner were quashed and set aside as the said proceedings were initiated beyond a reasonable period of time
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
Written by- Aadit Shah
