9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging orders passed by Deputy Collector and affirmed in appeal and revision, maintainability of petitions under Article 227, exercise of revisional powers beyond the reasonable period, jurisdiction of revenue authorities to decide on the validity of transactions, limited powers of revenue authorities in RTS proceedings, necessity to refer matters to empowered authorities under specific enactments. Analysis: The judgment addresses multiple petitions challenging orders passed by the Deputy Collector and affirmed in appeal and revision. The common questions of law and fact in all petitions are considered collectively. The petitioners challenged the cancellation of mutation entries made in the record of right pertaining to their respective properties. The Deputy Collector set aside the mutation entries, leading to further appeals and revisions, ultimately reaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue of maintainability under Article 227 is raised by the Government Counsel, contending that the petitions should be treated under Article 226. The Court accepts the oral request for conversion under Article 226, subject to the payment of any deficit court fees within a specified period. The substantive legal arguments revolve around the exercise of revisional powers by the Deputy Collector beyond the reasonable period, as established by previous legal precedents, notably the Supreme Court ruling in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha. The judgment delves into the jurisdiction of revenue authorities in deciding the validity of transactions. It emphasizes the limited powers of revenue authorities in RTS proceedings, highlighting specific provisions in the Code governing mutation entries. The Court clarifies that revenue authorities cannot assume powers beyond their statutory mandate and must refer matters involving contravention of other enactments to the appropriate empowered authorities. Citing legal precedents and Division Bench rulings, the Court establishes the timeframe within which revisional powers can be exercised and the necessity to adhere to statutory procedures for determining the validity of transactions. The judgment concludes by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders, allowing the concerned authority to take lawful action to examine the validity of transactions in each case, if deemed necessary. The rule on each petition is made absolute with no order as to costs.
|
