2015 (9) TMI 1673 - HC - Indian Laws

Invalidity of 37-year-old show-cause notice due to unreasonable delay and ownership change

BHARATBHAI NARANBHAI VEGDA & 5 Others Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 13 Others

BHARATBHAI NARANBHAI VEGDA & 5 Others Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 13 Others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the show-cause notice issued after 37 years under the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949.2. Jurisdictional question regarding the delay in issuing the show-cause notice.3. Locus standi of the respondent in challenging the transaction.4. Applicability of Section 75 of the Ordinance concerning the forfeiture and re-entrustment of land.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice Issued After 37 Years:The court examined whether the initiation of proceedings under the Ordinance after a delay of 37 years was permissible. The appellants argued that the show-cause notice was issued long after the transactions were completed and revenue entries were certified. The court referred to multiple precedents, including State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., which established that a question of limitation is a jurisdictional question and thus maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the initiation of action after such a prolonged period was beyond a reasonable time and thus invalid.2. Jurisdictional Question Regarding the Delay:The court discussed the principle that even if no specific limitation period is prescribed, actions must be taken within a 'reasonable period.' This principle was supported by various judgments, including State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, which emphasized that allowing void transactions to remain effective for a long period could create valuable rights for parties involved, making it unreasonable to annul such transactions after a significant delay. The court found that initiating action after 35 years was beyond reasonable time, making the show-cause notice jurisdictionally invalid.3. Locus Standi of the Respondent:The respondent's father, one of the original sellers, did not contest the transactions during his lifetime. The court noted that the respondent, who raised the issue after 35 years, lacked the bona fide to challenge the transaction. Citing Patel Ratilal Maganbhai vs. State of Gujarat, the court emphasized that legal heirs of the original transferor cannot contest a voluntary sale after such a long period, especially when the transferor accepted the consideration and did not raise any disputes during his lifetime. Thus, the respondent's locus standi was considered weak.4. Applicability of Section 75 of the Ordinance:The court examined whether Section 75 of the Ordinance, which provides for summary eviction, also implied forfeiture or re-entrustment of land to the original owner. The court noted that Section 75 did not explicitly provide for forfeiture by the State or re-entrustment to the original owner, unlike Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The court refrained from making a final determination on this issue but suggested that the notice might be ultra vires to Section 75 of the Ordinance.Conclusion:The court concluded that the show-cause notice issued after 37 years was beyond a reasonable period and thus invalid. The delay and change in ownership over the years further compounded the issue, making the action jurisdictionally flawed. The respondent's challenge to the transaction was also found to lack bona fide. Consequently, the court quashed the show-cause notice and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, allowing the appeal. The court also clarified that the pending civil suits should be decided independently of this judgment.