Gujarat High Court
M/S Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd vs Special Secretary ( Appeals ) on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12733 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
M/S ANCHOR DAEWOO INDUSTRIES LTD
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY ( APPEALS ) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITA PATHAK, APG for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 12/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:
”(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.03.2018
passed in Revision Application No.
MVV/GANOT/KUTCH/01/2017 as well as order dated
7/1/2017 passed by the Collector, Kutch and further be
pleased to restore the order passed by the learnedPage 1 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
Mamlatdar and ALT dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned
Mamlatdar and ALT;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold and declare
that order passed by the learned District Collector confirmed
by the learned SSRD are illegal, arbitrary, devoid of merits
and passed in contravention to the provisions of Section 89
and 89A of the Act, 1958;
(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the petition,
Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation,
operation and execution of the order dated 28.03.2018
passed in Revision Application No.
MVV/GANOT/KUTCH/01/2017 as well as order dated
7/1/2017 passed by the Collector, Kutch and further be
pleased to restrain the authority – Mamlatdar and ALT from
initiating proceedings under Section 122 of the Act for
alleged breach of Section 89 as per the order passed by the
learned District Collector;
(D) During the pendency and final disposal of the petition,
Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities not to take any coercive steps against the
petitioner and further be pleased to restrain the respondent
authority from taking any action which would hamper the
ongoing industrial activity undertaken by the petitioner and
further be pleased to direct the District Collector to processPage 2 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
the application under Section 65-B of the BLRC without being
influenced by the present proceedings;
(E) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be
thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”
2) The case of the petitioner can be summarised in a nutshell
as under:
2.1) On 18.09.2002, M/s. Anchor Kenwood Enterprise purchased
the property in question from the original owner, Bharatbhai
Karsanbhai Tank, by way of executing a registered sale deed.
Pursuant thereto, Revenue Entry No. 2004 came to be mutated in
the revenue record and was subsequently certified on
23.01.2003. Thereafter, Anchor Kenwood Enterprise, Propreitary
concern of S.D. Family Trust, transferred the said land in favour
of Anchor Electronics Limited by executing the necessary
transfer documents. Pursuant to the said transaction, Revenue
Entry No. 2093 came to be mutated in the revenue record on
14.06.2003. Subsequently, the said company preferred an
application before the competent authority stating that the
name of the company had been amended and, therefore, the said
amenment was required to be reflected in the revenue record.
Accordingly, the name of the company was amended to Anchor
Daewoo Industries Limited, and the corresponding entry was
mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 2167. Thereafter,
the petitioner company preferred an application before the
Page 3 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
competent authority seeking permission for bona fide industrial
purpose with retrospective effect. The said application was
entertained and the Deputy Collector, Bhuj issued a certificate in
favour of the petitioner on 06.02.2004. Thereafter, in the year
2006, the petitioner company once again preferred an
application seeking permission in respect of Survey Nos. 64 and
65 under Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958. The said
application was considered and a certificate was issued by the
office of the Deputy Collector on 20.02.2006, subject to certain
conditions. Pursuant thereto, Revenue Entry No. 2609 came to be
mutated on 20.03.2006 and was subsequently certified on
21.07.2006. Thereafter, as per the established practice, the
petitioner preferred an appropriate application before the
District Collector for availing permission under Section 65B of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code. During the scrutiny of the said
application, the competent authority formed an opinion that
there appeared to be a breach of Section 89 of the Act,
considering Entry No. 2004 mutated in the revenue record
pursuant to the sale transaction between Anchor Kenwood
Enterprise and Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Tank. Pursuant thereto,
the Mamlatdar and ALT, Bhuj, initiated proceedings under
Section 122 of the Act, 1958 for the alleged breach of Section 89
by issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner. In response
thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply stating that
the company is engaged in the manufacturing of various
products and that, for administrative and technical reasons, the
Page 4 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
name of the company was amended, however, the capital
investment and immovable properties continued to remain with
the parent company, i.e, Anchor Daewoo Industries Ltd. After
considering and appreciating the documents and materials
placed on record, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Bhuj, dropped the
proceedings and withdrew the notice issued to the company. As
per the prevailing procedure, the relevant papers were
thereafter forwarded to the office of the District Collector for
approval of the said decision. Upon verification and scrutiny of
the documents available on record, the District Collector, Bhuj,
formed an opinion that at the time of execution of the first sale
deed between the company and Bharatbhai Tank, the requisite
permission had not been obtained. In the absence of supporting
documents, the Collector concluded that there was a breach of
Section 89 of the Act. Accordingly, the Collector initiated
proceedings under Section 110 of the Act and issued a show-
cause notice to the petitioner on 22.08.2016. The petitioner
opposed the said proceedings by filing a detailed reply, however,
the documents placed on record were not properly considered.
Ultimately, the Collector passed an order cancelling the
transactions executed between the parties and also cancelled
the revenue entries mutated in the revenue record, holding that
prima facie a breach of Section 89 had occurred at the time of
execution of the sale deed pertaining to Survey Nos. 64 and 65.
2.2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision,
delivered by the Collector an appeal had been prepared before
Page 5 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department by raising
manifold grounds but reason based on to the authority
concerned without considering and appreciating all those
documents and material available on record, straightaway by
reiterating the reasons assigned by the Collector at the time of
dismissing the entry the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department had dismissed the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, hence, present petition is filed.
3) Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit on behalf of the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for Respondent
No. 1.
4) Learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit, appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that it is an
admitted position of fact that the first transaction had taken
place between M/s. Anchor Kenwood Enterprise and the owner
and vendor of the property, Bharatbhai Karsanbhai Tank, on
18.09.2002. Pursuant thereto, a revenue entry came to be
mutated and subsequently certified by the competent revenue
authority. However, at the relevant point of time, a mistake
occurred on the part of the company as they had not obtained
the required prior permission from the concerned authority.
Thereafter, another transaction took place between two
companies by way of execution of a registered sale deed,
pursuant to which a revenue entry was again mutated and
subsequently certified. It is further submitted that thereafter,
Page 6 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
the name of the company was changed and, therefore, an
application came to be preferred before the concerned authority
for amendment of the company’s name in the revenue record.
Accordingly, necessary corrections were carried out in the
revenue record by mutating an appropriate entry reflecting the
changed name of the company. Subsequently, on 06.02.2004, an
application was preferred before the office of the Deputy
Collector, Bhuj, seeking permission for bona fide industrial
purposes with retrospective effect. At that relevant point of
time, all necessary documents and materials were furnished
before the authority concerned. After considering and
appreciating the documents and materials available on record,
the Deputy Collector granted the requisite permission by issuing
a certificate in favour of the company under Section 89 read with
Section 45B, subject to certain conditions. A copy of the said
order has been placed on record. He further submits that if this
Court takes a cursory glance at the contents of the said
document, it would reveal that all the transactions that took
place during the interregnum period between the company and
other parties have been specifically mentioned in the chart in a
very clear and categorical terms, wherein Survey Nos. 64 and 65
have been shown at Serial No. 4.
4.1) Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit has submitted that, at this
juncture, he would like to refer to the statutory provisions of law,
more particularly Section 89 of the Act. Upon perusal of the said
provision, he submits that, admittedly, as per the statutory
Page 7 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
provisions of law, the powers are conferred upon and are to be
exercised by the Collector. However, in the present case, the
Deputy Collector, Bhuj who had issued the certificate in favour of
the company, exercised such powers. Therefore, by virtue of the
exercise of powers by the Deputy Collector in issuing the
certificate in favour of the petitioner, it clearly crystallizes the
position that, at that relevant point of time, such powers had
been delegated to the Deputy Collector to carry out the said
exercise. He further submits that, at the time of issuance of the
certificate, the concerned authority had imposed certain
conditions, and it has also been stated in very categorically terms
that the said certificate had been issued with retrospective
effect.
4.2) Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit has taken the Court through
the entire order and submitted that even the history of the
ownership of the property and the entries mutated in the
revenue record from time to time, on the basis of execution of
various deeds, have been described in a very clear and categorical
terms. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that
the revenue authority had issued the certificate without verifying
the relevant records and proceedings. He further submits that if
this Court would make cursory glance at the discussion on the
merits of the case, it would be evident that the deed executed
between Bharatbhai Tank and the company has been specifically
referred to said transaction and had been regularized with
retrospective effect. It is also an admitted position of fact that
Page 8 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
the said certificate issued by the office of the Deputy Collector
continues to remain in existence as on date. Unless and until the
said certificate is set aside or annulled, no further proceedings
can be initiated on the basis of the revenue record. He further
submits that, thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an
application under Section 65B before the competent revenue
authority for regularization of the proceedings. However, in the
said proceedings, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Bhuj, came to the
conclusion that there was an express breach of the provisions of
Section 89 of the Act, and therefore proceedings under Section
122 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code were required to be
initiated.
4.3) The petitioner appeared and filed a detailed reply and after
considering and appreciating all the documents and materials
available on record, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Bhuj, came to the
conclusion that there was no breach of the provisions of Section
89 of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings instituted against
the petitioner under Section 122 were dropped. However, the
said proceedings were taken into suo moto revision by the
Collector. Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit submitted that there is a
fundamental flaw in the initiation of the proceedings at the
instance of the revenue authority, inasmuch as the order was
passed by the Deputy Collector while exercising the powers
delegated to him by the Collector. Therefore, the order passed
by the Deputy Collector could not have been taken into as breach
of the statutory provisions of law at the instance of the
Page 9 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
Mamlatdar. He further submitted that these particular facts were
required to be taken into consideration by the Collector at the
time of issuance of the show-cause notice in the suo moto
revision proceedings. Thus, the cumulative effect of the statutory
provisions as well as the action initiated by the authorities
concerned clearly crystallizes the position that the revenue
authority concerned had no jurisdiction to entertain or initiate
such proceedings. He further submitted that, so far as the second
limb of the contention is concerned, at the time of issuance of
the certificate that too issued retrospectively, and at the time of
initiation of the proceedings, the said certificate issued by the
highest revenue authority was already in existence. In such
circumstances, the proceedings initiated at the instance of the
Mamlatdar clearly amount to exceeding his jurisdiction, and the
action of the Mamlatdar is per se illegal, erroneous, and contrary
to the statutory provisions of law, and therefore, the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.4) Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit has further submitted that it
is a settled proposition of law, as held time and again by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in numerous cases, that
suo moto powers are required to be exercised by the revenue
authorities only when it is found that entries have been mutated
in the revenue record in clear breach of the statutory provisions
of law, in that event, the authorities may exercise such powers by
initiating appropriate proceedings. Although no specific time
limit is prescribed under the statute for initiating such
Page 10 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
proceedings, it is equally well settled that, in the absence of a
prescribed limitation period, such powers must be exercised
within a reasonable period of time. The reasonable period of
time cannot ordinarily exceed three years, as repeatedly held and
enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judicial
pronouncements. In the present case, admittedly, the first entry
was mutated in the revenue record in the year 2002, whereas the
proceedings were initiated by the authority concerned in the year
2015-2016, after a lapse of approximately 13 years. Therefore,
there is gross and inordinate delay in the initiation of the
proceedings and solely on the ground of such delayed initiation,
the orders passed by the authorities concerned deserve to be
quashed and set aside.
4.5) Considering the above-stated totality of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is submitted that this is a fit
case where the indulgence of this Court is needed, and therefore
the orders passed by the revenue authorities deserve to be
quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
5) The present petition is strongly opposed by the Learned
AGP, Mr. Aditya Pathak, who submits that the order passed by
the Collector, which has subsequently been confirmed by the
Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, has been
passed by the concerned revenue authorities after duly
considering and appreciating all the documents and material
available on record. The orders passed by the revenue authorities
Page 11 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
are based upon concurrent findings of fact. He further submits
that it is a settled proposition of law that, while exercising writ
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, this Court is ordinarily slow in interfering with the decisions
of revenue authorities when such decisions are based upon
concurrent findings of fact. Learned AGP further submits that the
entire sequence of events, incidents, and occurrences which took
place during the pendency of the proceedings has already been
described in detail by the petitioner. Therefore, with a view to
saving the valuable time of this Court, he would not reiterate the
same facts. However, he submits that the fact remains that the
company is a juristic person, and the Anchor Kenwood Enterprise
had purchased the said property by executing a registered sale
deed, pursuant to which an entry was mutated in the revenue
record and subsequently certified. It is an admitted position of
fact that, at that relevant point of time, the concerned parties
were required to obtain necessary permission from the
competent authority. However, without obtaining such
permission, the transaction was carried out. Thereafter, the
company sold the said property to a second company, and
subsequently, a third transaction appears to have been executed
between the parties. Thereafter, an application was preferred
before the competent authority for the purpose of obtaining a
certificate under Section 89 of the Act. The said certificate was
considered and issued by the concerned authority. However, it
appears that at the time of issuance of the certificate, the
transactions carried out in contravention of the statutory
Page 12 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
provisions of law and those particular beach of provisions
occurred which could not be verified by the authority in its true
spirit and proper perspective. Consequently, without taking into
consideration the aforesaid transactions which had taken place
earlier, the certificate came to be issued. He further submits that
it is a settled proposition of law that although the effect of such
certificate is retrospective in nature, during the course of
scrutiny of the documents, the Collector noticed that at the time
of the first transaction, the required permission had not been
obtained, nor was any document placed on record in support
thereof. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it is
required to be presumed that the said permission had not been
obtained at the time of execution of the transaction. Therefore,
it can be said that there was an apparent breach of the statutory
provisions of law at the time of execution of the sale deed, and
consequently, the entry mutated in the revenue records required
to be declared as cancelled. Subsequently, in the appellate
proceedings, the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department also confirmed the view adopted by the Collector.
Therefore, according to the learned AGP, no error of law or fact
can be said to have been committed by the revenue authorities
while passing the impugned orders.
5.1) Considering the above-stated totality of the facts of the
matter, this is a fit case wherein order passed by the revenue
authorities are required to be confirmed by dismissing the
present petition.
Page 13 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
6) Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and upon careful consideration of the record
and proceedings of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, at
this juncture, before dwelling into the core issues involved in the
present matter, it would be appropriate and necessary to set out
the sequence of events as well as the undisputed facts emerging
from the record, which have a direct bearing on the present
matter. The same are delineated hereunder:
6.1) It emerges from the record that the predecessor-in-title of
the present petitioner had purchased the subject property by
way of execution of a registered sale deed from the vendor,
namely Bharatbhai Tank, on 18.09.2002. Pursuant to the
execution of the said registered sale deed, a corresponding
mutation entry being Entry No. 2004 came to be recorded in the
revenue record, which was subsequently certified on 23.01.2003
by the competent revenue authority after following the
prescribed procedure. Thereafter, it seeems that Anchor
Kenwood Enterprise, having acquired the property, transferred
the said land in question in favour of Anchor Electronics Limited
by executing a registered sale deed. In consequence thereof, the
relevant mutation entry was again effected in the revenue
record, which also came to be duly certified by the competent
authority, thereby recognizing the said transaction in the official
revenue records. Subsequently, Anchor Electronics Limited
preferred applications before the competent authority in respect
Page 14 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
of Survey Nos. 64 and 65 under the provisions of Section 89 of
the Act. The said applications were examined and considered by
the Deputy Collector who was pleased to grant the necessary
permissions upon due scrutiny and satisfaction and issued the
requisite certificate vide order dated 20.02.2006. It is pertinent
to note that such permissions were granted with certain
conditions and were accorded retrospective effect. Pursuant to
the aforesaid order, Mutation Entry No. 2609 was recorded in the
revenue record on 20.03.2006, which thereafter came to be
certified on 21.04.2006. Thus, the transactions in question
attained finality in the revenue record at the relevant point of
time. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred an application
before the District Collector seeking permission under Section
65D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the prescribed format.
During the course of scrutiny of the said application, the District
Collector noticed there was an alleged breach of the provisions
of Section 89 of the Act in relation to Mutation Entry No. 2004,
which had originally been recorded pursuant to the sale
transaction between Bharatbhai Tank and Anchor Kenwood
Enterprise. In view of the aforesaid observation, and in
accordance with the directions issued by the District Collector,
the Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhuj, initiated proceedings under Section
122 of the Act, 1958, by issuing a show-cause notice to the
petitioner alleging breach of the provisions of Section 89 of the
Act. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a
detailed reply along with all relevant documentary evidence. It
was specifically contended that the petitioner company is
Page 15 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
engaged in manufacturing activities and that, for administrative,
commercial, and technical convenience, the name of the
company had undergone an amendment. However, it was
clarified that the capital investment as well as the immovable
properties continued to remain vested with and under the
control of the parent company, namely Anchor Daewoo
Industries Ltd., and therefore, allegedly no breach could be said
to have occurred. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Bhuj, upon due
consideration of the material placed on record and after
appreciating the factual and legal aspects of the matter, arrived
at a categorical finding that no breach of the provisions of
Section 122 of the Act was made out. Accordingly, the
proceedings initiated under the said provision came to be
dropped qua Survey Nos. 64 and 65 vide order dated 21.09.2015.
6.2) As per the established administrative practice and
procedure, the relevant papers and record were thereafter
forwarded to the office of the District Collector for further
scrutiny. Upon verification of the same, the District Collector
formed an opinion that the Mamlatdar had failed to consider the
material on record in its true spirit and proper perspective. On
such premise, the District Collector proceeded to initiate suo
moto proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 110 of the
Act. The petitioner once again submitted a detailed reply placing
on record all relevant documents and reiterating the earlier
contentions. However, it appears that the said material was not
duly appreciated and considered by the District Collector in its
Page 16 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
true spirit and proper perspective, and ultimately, an adverse
order came to be passed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred a
Revision Application before the Special Secretary (Appeals),
Revenue Department. However, the said revision came to be
dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by the District
Collector. Hence, the present petition has been filed before this
Court.
6.3) Upon a careful and bare perusal of the record, it clearly
emerges that the registered sale deed dated 18.09.2002
executed between Bharatbhai Tank and Anchor Kenwood
Enterprise was sought to be examined and brought within the
consideration of the provisions of Section 89 of the Act by the
Mamlatdar only in the year 2015. Thus, it is evident that the
proceedings came to be initiated after an inordinate delay of
approximately 13 years from the date of the original transaction.
The legal position with regard to such delayed exercise of
statutory powers is no longer res integra. It is a settled principle
of law that where a statute confers power upon an authority,
such power is required to be exercised within a reasonable period
of time. Even in cases where no specific limitation period is
prescribed, the authority cannot exercise such powers after an
inordinate and unreasonable delay, as such delay itself vitiates
the exercise of jurisdiction. This principle assumes greater
significance in matters pertaining to revenue administration,
where actions taken after a long lapse of time tend to unsettle
Page 17 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
vested rights and disturb settled positions, thereby causing
serious prejudice and hardship to the affected parties, who may
have altered their position based on the existing state of affairs.
The aforesaid principle has been consistently recognized and
reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a
catena of decisions. In the landmark judgment of State of
Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphatically held that powers vested
in revenue authorities must be exercised within a reasonable
time and that belated exercise of such powers would render the
action invalid. Similarly, in the case of Ranchodbhai Lallubhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1984 (2) GLR 1225, this
Court deprecated the practice of exercising powers after an
unreasonable delay and observed that, in the meantime, the
affected parties would have materially altered their position, and
any such belated interference would result in irreparable injury
and serious prejudice.
6.4) In yet another decision rendered by a Division Bench of this
Court while dealing with the provisions of the Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, it was
held that even a delay of 31 years in initiating proceedings was
wholly unreasonable and could not be countenanced in law, as
the same would defeat the very principles of certainty, finality,
and fairness in administrative action. It is stated that:
”Even the void transaction under Sec. 9(1) if allowed to
remain effective for considerably long period, the authorityPage 18 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
named therein will be precluded from initiating proceedings
to annul it. Even the void transaction cannot be said to be
nonexistent in all cases and in all situations. It can remain
effective and in existence till it is invalidated and set aside. If
its existence is allowed to remain for a considerable period
and with the passage of time it brings about several changes,
creating valuable rights in favour of considerable section of
people, it is difficult to accept the proposition that despite
the change the Collector would be entitled to exercise power
under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 9 of the Act. When the things have
been allowed to remain as such for years together, the
purchaser cannot be deprived of his possession so as to
render indirect benefit to the seller who was equally
responsible for entering into such illegal transaction. When
the authority had considerable opportunities to know about
the transaction and despite that, has not taken any action
thereon for years together, such authority cannot be allowed
to exercise powers conferred upon it at a belated stage. The
concept of reasonableness of time will equally apply in such
cases. Therefore, even powers conferred upon the Collector
under sub-secs. (2) and (3) of Sec. 9 are required to be
exercised within a reasonable time. [Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai v.
State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) GLH 34 : (2005 (3) GLR 1852)]”
7) At this juncutre, I would like to rely and refer the decisions
made in this Court in the case of Koli Parshottambhai
Narsinhbhai & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat Thro Secretary
(Appeals) & Ors. in Special Civil Application No. 253 of 2013
decided on 17.02.2026. More particularly extracts of Paragraph
Nos. 15 to 21, here as under:
”15. The question involved in the present case is no longer
res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & another
vs. D. Narsing Rao and others – (2015) 3 SCC 695, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with exercise of suo motuPage 19 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
revisional powers after nearly 5 decades and has ruled that
unexplained and inordinate delay in invoking such power
would itself tantamount to fraud upon statute apart from
being arbitrary and opposed to rule of law. Useful reference
can be made to the observations made in paragraphs 14, 16 &
17 which read as under:
14. Admittedly, the names of the predecessors-in-title
of the respondents are found mentioned in kharsa
pahani of the year 1954-1955 pertaining to khsra Nos.
36 and 37 of Gopanpally Village. The purchase of the
said lands by the respondents from them under
registered sale deeds are also not seriously disputed.
The further fact is that they have been regularly paying
land revenue to the Government since the year 1954.
The appellants herein issued impugned notice dated 31-
12-2004 under Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana
Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F (1907) for cancellation
of entries in the kharsa pahani of the year 1953-1954
by fixing the date of inquiry as 5-2-2005 and that notice
is the subject-matter of challenge here.
16. No time-limit is prescribed in the above section for
the exercise of suo motu power but the question is as to
whether the suo motu power could be exercised after a
period of 50 years. The Government as early as in the
year 1991 passed an order reserving 477 acres of land
in Survey Nos. 36 and 37 of Gopanpally Village for
house sites to the Government employees. In other
words, the Government had every occasion to verify the
revenue entries pertaining to the said lands while
passing the Government Order dated 24-9-1991 but no
exception was taken to the entries found. Further, the
respondents herein filed Writ Petition No. 21719 of
1997 challenging the Government Order dated 24-9-
1991 and even at that point of time no action was
initiated pertaining to the entries in the said survey
numbers. Thereafter, the purchasers of land from
respondents 1 and 2 filed a civil suit in OS No. 12 of
2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District praying for a declaration that they were
Page 20 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
lawful owners and possessors of certain plots of land in
Survey No. 36, and after contest, the suit was decreed
and said decree is allowed to become final. By the
impugned notice dated 31-12-2004 the suo motu
revision powers under Section 166-B referred to above
is sought to be exercised after five decades and if it is
allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous and
serious implications leading to uncertainty and
complications seriously affecting the rights of the
parties over immovable properties.
17. In the light of what is stated above we are of the
view that the Division Bench of the High Court was
right in affirming the view of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court that the suo motu revision
undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the
absence of any period of limitation, was arbitrary and
opposed to the concept of rule of law.
16. Reiteration of this aspect is again found in paragraphs
30 and 31, where the Apex Court refers to the decision in the
case of Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. vs. District Board,
Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC 598 and in paragraph 31 where the
principle of law is laid down as under:
“31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional
jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or
transactions were to remain forever open to challenge,
it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in
human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because,
even when there is no period of limitation prescribed
for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may
have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot
be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary
power especially when no cogent explanation for the
delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely
with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders
sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of
power must be within a reasonable period of the
discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or
Page 21 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time
for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise
of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a
fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an
authority.”
17. In the present case also there is delay of 11 years in
initiating suo-motu proceedings after the certification of
Entry No. 650 in the year 1992 in favour of the writ
applicants. Therefore, facts in the present case and facts of
the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court are similar in nature
so far as the nature of the dispute and the extent of delay are
concerned. Hence, even in this case, it can safely be said that
exercise of power by the Assistant Collector tantamounts to
arbitrary and illegal exercise of such power.
18. Moreover, when the question of delay comes, then all
other issues including breach of any of the provisions would
not have much relevance in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel
Raghav Natha, reported in 1969 (2) SCC 187. Similarly, in a
judgment reported in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda
Patil & Ors. vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors., reported
in (2009) 9 SCC 352; 2009 AIR SCW 6305, it has been
observed that such power cannot be exercised beyond a
reasonable period. It has been observed thus:
“Having regard to the fact that the proceedings came
to be initiated after delay of more than about three
years and that the petitioner has changed his position,
such belated proceedings and order cannot be
sustained. The proceedings should have been initiated
within a reasonable time inasmuch as undisputedly the
notice under the Act was issued in 2005. The
proceedings and the order are hit by the vice of delay.”
19. Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in a
judgment reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788 in the case of
Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya and Ors. vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors. had considered this aspect with reference to
Page 22 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
the delay in exercise of such powers and the reasonable
period. It has been observed as under:
“It must be fairly said that if the statute does not
prescribe a time-limit for exercise of revisional powers,
it does not mean that such powers can be exercised at
any point of time, even if there is a breach of any
provision which relates to a new tenure land. Rather, it
should be exercised within a reasonable period of time;
otherwise it would be unreasonable and arbitrary after
a long lapse of time. It is settled law from various
judgments of the Supreme Court that where a statutory
provision for exercise of any suo motu power does not
prescribe any limitation, the power must be exercised
within a reasonable period of time even in the case of
transaction which would be termed as void
transaction.”
20. Thus, the moot question is what could be considered to
be “reasonable time” when the statute does not provide for
any time-limit for exercise of such powers. The Division Bench
of the High Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of
Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya (supra) has observed in
paragraph 38 referring to an earlier judgment reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 488:
“As observed in Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal,
2002(1) SCC 134, it is “looking at all the circumstances
of the case, a “reasonable time” under ordinary
circumstances; as soon as circumstances will permit; so
much time as it is necessary under the circumstances,
conveniently to do what the contract requires should be
done; some more protracted space than ‘directly; such
length of time as may fairly, and properly, and
reasonable be allowed or required, having regard to the
nature of the act or duty and to the attending
circumstances; all these convey more or less the same
idea”.
Further, it has been observed,
Page 23 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
“That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party
the rights and advantages he possesses and protects
each party from losses that he ought not to suffer
(Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd
Edn., 2005”
21. That apart, the principles laid down in the judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the writ
applicants also apply to the facts of the present case on all
fours.”
8) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, it prima facie appears that the proceedings, which pertain
to the transactions undertaken by the predecessor-in-title of the
petitioner as well as the original vendor in the year 2004, came to
be examined only in the year 2013 upon issuance of a show-cause
notice under Section 122 of the Act. Thus, it is evident that such
proceedings were initiated after an inordinate and unreasonable
lapse of time. This Court is of the opinion that such belated
initiation of proceedings is per se untenable in law. The same is
clearly beyond the scope of a “reasonable period” as
contemplated under settled legal principles governing the
exercise of statutory powers. Therefore, solely on the ground of
delay and laches, the proceedings initiated by the concerned
authority deserve to be quashed and set aside, and the present
petition merits consideration accordingly. This Court has also
carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case and has
duly considered the submissions advanced by the learned
advocate appearing for the petitioner. Upon such consideration,
this Court finds that, pursuant to the execution of the registered
Page 24 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
sale deed, an application was preferred before the office of the
Collector seeking regularization of the transaction under the
provisions of Section 89 read with Section 45(B) of the Act. It
further emerges from the record that, upon due consideration
and appreciation of the documents and material placed on
record, the competent authority, namely the Deputy Collector,
Bhuj, had accorded sanction to the said transaction by issuing a
certificate dated 06.02.2004. Thereafter, a subsequent
application was also preferred before the authority, which came
to be considered by the Deputy Collector, Bhuj, and vide order
dated 20.02.2006, the said authority granted permission with
certain terms and conditions and issued the requisite certificate
with retrospective effect. Further, it prima facie appears that, at
the time of granting such permissions and issuing the
certificates, the authority concerned had taken into
consideration all the relevant documents and material available
on record in their true spirit and proper perspective. It further
appears that the names of the original holders of the property
were duly reflected, and thereafter, on the strength of the
execution of the relevant deeds, the property came to be
transferred in favour of the subsequent purchaser. Apparently,
even prior to the execution of the sale deed between Bharatbhai
Tank and the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, the rights and
equities in respect of the property had undergone changes
amongst various stakeholders. Therefore, in light of the
observations recorded in the operative portion of the orders, it
can reasonably be inferred that the Deputy Collector, after
Page 25 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
considering and appreciating all the material on record, had
passed the orders granting the requisite permissions with
retrospective effect.
9) In view of the aforesaid, it becomes evident that, upon
issuance of the certificates by the Deputy Collector, the
transactions entered into between the parties were regularized
in accordance with law. Once such regularization had taken place
by the competent authority, the same could not have been
reopened after a long period of time, more particularly in the
absence of any fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of
material facts. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by
the learned advocate for the petitioner that, under the statutory
provision of the Act, the powers to grant permission under
Section 89 are vested in the Collector. However, it appears that,
at the relevant point of time, considering the administrative
workload, such powers had been duly delegated to the office of
the Deputy Collector by way of appropriate notifications,
circulars, or resolutions issued by the Government of Gujarat.
Thus, in effect, the powers of the Collector were exercised by the
Deputy Collector at thar relevant point of time, and the said
position is not in dispute. Therefore, the orders passed by the
Deputy Collector cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or
authority.
9.1) Secondly, the certificate issued by the Deputy Collector has
neither been cancelled nor declared illegal by any competent
Page 26 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
authority till date. In the absence of any express judicial or
administrative order setting aside the said certificate, no
proceedings alleging breach of the provisions of the concerned
section could have been initiated by the Mamlatdar by exercising
powers under Section 122. It is a settled proposition of law that,
within the hierarchical administrative structure, the Deputy
Collector is superior in rank to the Mamlatdar. Consequently, the
Mamlatdar lacks jurisdiction to examine or question the legality
and validity of an order passed by the Deputy Collector.
Therefore, initiation of proceedings under Section 122 by the
Mamlatdar, in effect challenging entries mutated in the revenue
record as far back as the year 2002, suffers from a fundamental
jurisdictional error. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that
the said transactions were subsequently regularized with
retrospective effect by the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy
Collector. It is also a well-settled principle of law that while
powers are delegated to the Deputy Collector by the Collector,
any order passed in exercise of such delegated authority stands
on the same ground as that of the Collector and cannot be
subjected to revision by the Collector himself. Any challenge to
such an order must lie before a higher authority in accordance
with law. From the record, it appears that the order passed by
the Mamlatdar has already been taken into suo moto revision by
the Collector. However, while doing so, the Collector has failed
to consider that the powers exercised by the Deputy Collector
were duly delegated by the Collector himself. In such
circumstances, the Collector could not have exercised suo moto
Page 27 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
revisional jurisdiction over the matter in disregard of the settled
legal position. Therefore, the exercise of such power is without
jurisdiction and is unsustainable.
10) Considering the above-stated totality of the facts of the
matter, the very initiation of proceedings by the Mamlatdar
through issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 122 is bad
in the eye of law, particularly when the entries in question had
already been regularized by a higher authority, namely the
Deputy Collector. After due consideration and appreciation of
the relevant documents and material on record, the Deputy
Collector had issued the certificate, which remains valid. In the
absence of its cancellation by a competent authority, no further
proceedings could have been initiated. The impugned order is
therefore, unjust, illegal, and contrary to the material available
on record, and is not in consonance with settled principles of law.
Moreover, the proceedings undertaken in suo moto revision and
the order passed by the Special Secretary are also not in
conformity with the statutory provisions and, therefore, cannot
be sustained in law. The same deserve to be quashed and set
aside.
11) Considering the aforesaid totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is an inordinate and unexplained
delay in initiation of the proceedings. The predecessor-in-title of
the petitioner had already applied for regularization, and the
transactions were duly regularized by the Deputy Collector. In
Page 28 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12733/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
such circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the concerned
authority are prima facie illegal, erroneous, and perverse, and are
liable to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present
application.
12) Therefore, in view of the above facts, I am of the
considered opinion that the orders passed by the revenue
authorities deserve to be quashed. Therefore, the present
petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 28.03.2018
passed by the learned Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue
Department in Revision Application No. MVV/ GANOT/ KUTCH/
01/ 2017 and the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the learned
Collector are hereby quashed and set aside and thereby the
order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned Mamlatdar and
ALT is hereby restored.
13) Rule is made absolute. Directed service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 29 of 29
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Mon Mar 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:29:00 IST 2026
