TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Collector, Surat in Appeal No. 427/87 and the confirming order by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Annexure-B, in Appeal No. 12/88 under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Bombay Land Revenue Rules. 2. The petitioner Society was registered on 7th August 1973 . According to the petitioner the land in question bearing Survey No. 159/2 belonged to Ranchhodbhai Pershottamdas, Ishwarlal Pershottamdas and Chhaganlal Pershottamdas jointly. The said Ranchhodbhai Pershottamdas had guaranteed repayment of loan taken by one Laxmiben Chhotabhai of Ambetha, Tal. Olpad who had taken loan from Shri Ambetha Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. As the debt was not paid the Society took steps for recovery of its dues....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the entry without informing or hearing the petitioners. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision application before Special Secretary, Ahmedabad who by an order dated 13th April 1987 directed the Collector, Surat to decide the application of the petitioner Society on merits as an appeal under R. 108(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Collector by his order dated 30-1-1988 confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector and the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department dismissed the petitioner's revision application on 29-11-1989. It is these orders of the Collector and Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department that have been challenged in this petition as ultra vire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilding purposes the occupant was likely to spend money on starting building operations. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the Commissioner's order passed more than a year after, the grant of permission required to be quashed. 8. The ratio laid down in this judgment was specifically followed by a Division Bench of this High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 38/1968 in the case of Bhagwanji Bawanji v. State of Gujarat, reported in (AIR 1971 Guj 64). In that judgment it was held that the State Government cannot keep the sword hanging on any person in respect of his property by choosing to Act and revise the order at its sweet will, that particular case it was held that under the ordinary law of limitation a suit for altering or set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause why the price of the land granted to the society should not be revised to Rs. 275/ - per sq. yd. The Court took Into consideration the fact that the petitioner Society had already constructed flats over the land and it was not in a position to return the land to the Government if it was desirous of paying price at taken by the Government in initiating proceedings under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was unreasonable. 11. In the present case the petitioner Society purchased the land in a public auction held at the instance of Special Recovery Officer, Surat on 25-5-1971. 77 members of the petitioner society contributed towards the cost of the land and paid an amount of Rs.2,45,000/-. An entry was accordingly made in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate revenue officer and to review the same under sub-rule (6) of the rules. It is to be noted in the present case that no appeal had been presented within 60 days from the date of Mamlatdar's order certifying the initial entry. the Assistant Collector, Surat took the said entry in suo motu revision, even though he had no such power under the provisions of Rule 108. It, therefore, appears that the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department remanded the proceeding to the Collector for treating the same as an appeal. This was done after a period of 4 years after certification of the entry. It was only the State Government which had the power to call for a record of inquir....