9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Collector and Additional Chief Secretary under Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules regarding cancellation of entry in revenue records and subsequent legal proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, challenged the orders passed by the Collector and Additional Chief Secretary regarding the cancellation of an entry in the revenue records related to a land purchase in a public auction. The Society contended that the Revenue Authorities acted beyond their powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Rules and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner Society purchased the land through a public auction and completed construction of about 60 houses. The Revenue Authorities initiated proceedings to cancel the entry made in favor of the petitioner after an unreasonable delay. The Society argued that the delay in exercising revisional powers was unjustified, citing legal precedents emphasizing the need for timely action by authorities. 3. The petitioner's counsel referred to legal judgments highlighting the importance of exercising revisional powers within a reasonable time frame. The Supreme Court and the High Court judgments emphasized that undue delays in exercising statutory powers could cause irreparable harm to affected parties and could lead to the quashing of orders passed after such delays. 4. The Court noted that the Revenue Authorities lacked the power to cancel entries in revenue records arbitrarily, especially after a significant period had elapsed since the initial certification. The petitioner had followed all necessary procedures, including obtaining approvals from relevant authorities, and the Revenue Authorities' actions were deemed to be ultra vires and based on a misconception of legal provisions. 5. The Court held that the orders of the Collector and Additional Chief Secretary were beyond their jurisdiction and proceeded on a misconception of relevant legal provisions. The Collector's order dated 30th January 1988 and the Additional Chief Secretary's order dated 29th November 1989 were quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.
|
