Stumptown tote bag Banksy, elit small batch freegan sed. Craft beer elit seitan exercitation, photo booth et 8-bit kale chips proident chillwave. Post a Comment. Karsanbhai Mohanbhai v. Bombay Land Revenue Code, — S.

Author:Yozilkree Moogujin
Country:El Salvador
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):10 January 2015
PDF File Size:18.60 Mb
ePub File Size:12.78 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Stumptown tote bag Banksy, elit small batch freegan sed. Craft beer elit seitan exercitation, photo booth et 8-bit kale chips proident chillwave. Post a Comment. Karsanbhai Mohanbhai v. Bombay Land Revenue Code, — S. It was a suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction, which came to be dismissed. After giving opportunity to learned advocate for the respondent on the proposed question of law, the same was framed by order dated 06th August, , which reads as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Collector could have competently exercised his powers under section of Bombay Land Revenue Rule read with of Bombay Land Revenue Rules, so as to set aside the order of Taluka Development Officer, which was passed by him in exercise of powers under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, ?

In the Civil Suit, it was the case of the appellant-plaintiff that he was an agriculturist, residing at Village Dhava Gir. Adjoining to the said land of defendant No. Meters was situated. The said defendant No. Thereafter Talala Gram Panchayat upon payment of the price fixed for the said land, executed registered document of sale dated 19th January, in favour of said Jentilal Bhagvanji.

He was put in possession of the land. The plaintiff, by virtue of registered Deed dated 20th January, , purchased the said entire land and became owner thereof. Having been purchased the land as aforesaid, in the year , appellant applied on 03rd July, before the Gram Panchayat for permission to make construction on the said land.

Talala Gram Panchayat granted necessary Rajachitthi permission to construct on 19th July, The appellant was accordingly called upon to show cause as to why the order of Taluka Development Officer dated 26th December, granting adjoining land to defendant No. In other words by the said notice, Taluka Development Officer questioned the title of the appellant's predecessordefendant No.

Exercising the power, Collector by his order dated 23rd March, cancelled and set aside the order of the Taluka Development Officer. The said Revision No. The said Authority further directed to remove the construction within three months.

The suit was instituted on 16th September, The prayer in the suit was to set aside the order of defendant No. It appears that by passing order below Exhibit 6 application, the Court directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the land in question on 17th May, Defendant No.

It was contended that earlier the request for sale of land was rejected. The Trial Court held against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant met with the same fate and came to be dismissed on 21st September, by the first appellate court.

Both the Courts reasoned and held that for selling the land admeasuring Meters above, Taluka Development Officer was not a competent authority since population of the village where the land was situated was more than , it was held, that powers to sell the land were vested with the District Development Officer in view of revenue department Notification dated 28th July, Thereafter in the year , the Collector exercised his revisional powers under Section of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and took the order of the Taluka Development Officer granting rent to defendant No.

As stated above, it was on the ground that not the Taluka Development Officer but the District Development Officer could have exercised the powers. Power of State Government and of certain revenue officers to call for and examine records and proceedings of subordinate officers :- The State Government and any revenue officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector or a Superintendent of Survey, in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate revenue officer for purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer.

The following officer may in the same manner call for and examine the proceedings of any officer subordinate to them in any matter in which neither a formal nor a summary inquiry has been held, namely, a Mamlatdar, a Mahalkari, an Assistant Superintendent of Survey and an Assistant Settlement Officer. And to pass orders thereupon :- If in any case, it shall appear to the State Government, or to such officer aforesaid, that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, it or he may pass such order thereon as it or he deems fit.

Provided that an Assistant or Deputy Collector shall not himself pass such order in any matter in which a formal inquiry has been held, but shall submit the record with his opinion to the Collector, who shall pass such order thereon as he may deem fit. This principle requiring the authority to act within reasonable time, has been propounded not only with reference to Section of the Code, but it stands true in respect of authority exercising the revisional powers under other enactments where the Section conferring such powers is silent on the period of limitation.

The rationale is that it would be harsh and inequitable to upset the state of affairs after lapse of unreasonable time when a person has changed his position with regard to the subject matter and equities have arisen.

A statutory authority is estopped from disturbing the position and cannot be permitted to exercise power to revise the order passed after long time. What constitute reasonable period for exercise of revisional power depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also held that the original order could be termed as nullity, the authority may exercise revisional powers at any time.

The appellant-plaintiff became owner by virtue of a registered document. It was after gap of four years that the Collector exercise his powers under Section of the Code and took exception to the original order of Exh. It transpires from the record that in favour of appellant-plaintiff permission to construct was also granted by way of Rajachitthi Exh. The contents of the order of the Collector dated 23rd March, Exh. The appellant had thus changed his position. Exhibit 81 was the order in favour of defendant No.

Furthermore the land which was purchased by the appellant was the entire land which comprised of the land owned by defendant-respondent No. Even the grant of piece of land to defendant No. As far as the appellant is concerned, no fraud or misrepresentation could be attributed to him.

He had purchased entire land as above by registered sale deed from defendant No. The ground on which the Collector sought to exercise revisional powers was also one which could not be characterized as rendering the act to be nullity. It was not that the sale of the adjoining land was not permissible. The ground was that it was the one authority as against other authority which was required to grant the permission.

Looking to the ground as well as the delayed exercise of powers, the same was impermissible in law. The exercise of revisional powers could be questioned from yet another angle in asmuch as ownership was vested in appellant-plaintiff under a registered sale deed and the Collector could not have set aside the registered sale deeds executed in the first instance by the Gram Panchayat in favour of plaintiff's predecessor in title-defendant No.

The order Exhibit 81 which was sought to be brought under the control of revisional powers under the Code, was an order granting land passed by the Taluka Development Officer. Indisputedly, the Taluka Development Officer acted under Section 98 1 and 98 2 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, and exercised his powers under the said provisions. When the order sought to be taken in suo motu revision was passed by an authority under the different enactment, the Collector could not have embarked upon to employ Section of the Code and to proceed to exercise his revisional powers under the Code in respect of the said order.

Now the words "any subordinate revenue officer" in the Section has to be taken as referring to the officers acting under and exercising powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Section 3 1 of the Code defines "revenue officer" to mean every officer of any rank whatsoever appointed under any of the provisions of this Act, and employed in or about the business of the land revenue or of the surveys, assessment, accounts, or records connected therewith and for the purposes of section 25 and 26 includes village-officer appointed or officiating under any of the provisions of the Bombay Hereditary Officers Act or the Matadars Act, Revisional powers conferred under Section of the Code could be said to be available to the revisional authority only in respect of those decisions and orders passed by "any subordinate revenue officer".

The Taluka Development Officer could not be termed as subordinate revenue officer to the Collector. It is not possible to cloth the powers under Section with the Collector to bring in the order of the Taluka Development Officer which was traceable to his authority and power under the Panchayats Act. Powers under one statute cannot be exercised for dealing the matter covered or falling under another statute.

It has been laid down by this Court in Evergreen Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs Special Secretary Appeals , Revenue Department, 1 GLH that an officer of the revenue department occupying different capacity under different statute, but it would not empower him to exercise powers under one enactment while proceeding under another enactment. It was so held in the context of powers to be exercisable under Rule of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules.

An officer cannot pass the orders, in the RTS proceedings, to cancel the mutation entry on an assumption that the transaction recorded in entry is against or contrary to a provision in another statute. This proposition of law laid down though slightly in a different context, it applies analogically. It has got to be held that it is not open to the Collector to take under revision an order which is not passed by a subordinate revenue officer but it is an order of another authority acting under another statute, in the instant case the Taluka Development Officer, exercising powers under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act.

He cannot be categorised as "any subordinate revenue officer" for the purpose of Section of the code. Any order or decision passed by these authorities could be subjected to an appeal before the District Panchayat in whom the appellate powers are vested by virtue of said Section. Section A provides for Appeal Committee of the District Panchayat which exercises the appellate powers.

Section B speaks of the authorities to whom the appeal may be addressed. Moreover, under Section of the Act the District Panchayat has powers to call for the proceedings of any Panchayat subordinate to it and power to issue directions to subordinate Panchayat.

Without having recourse to the above remedial course available under the very statute, in this case the District Development Officer made a proposal to the Collector asking him to exercise powers under Section of the Code and cancel the order of Taluka Development Officer Exh. Judgment and order passed by the first appellate court confirming the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court as well as judgment and order of Trial Court are hereby set aside.

As a result, the suit prayers stands allowed. The appeal stands allowed. Related Articles. Popular Posts. State of Gujarat and Ors. Quote Of The Day.


Ghunshabhai Govindbhai Pancholi v. State Of Gujarat And Another

N Bhatt, J. The petitioner has been in possession of land admeasuring sq. As per the contention of the petitioner, the disputed land is wasteland and is unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner. He has made use of the land for residence and other purposes and he has also constructed a house on the part of the said land.


Numerous and frequently-updated resource results are available from this WorldCat. Please choose whether or not you want other users to be able to see on your profile that this library is a favorite of yours. Finding libraries that hold this item You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway. All rights reserved.

Related Articles