ORDER

1.Delay condoned.

2. Heard Mr Dholakia, leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party.

3. The question for consideration in this special leave petition is whether

the impugned judgment which holds the issuance of the show-cause notice by the Collector in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction under Section 211 read with Rule 108(6} of the Rules is bad, as it was not exercised within a reasonable time, is sustainable or not. From the Judgment and Order dated 24-11-2000 in SCA No. 1032 of 1996 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

4. It is not necessary for us to go into the facts in detail. Suffice it to say, that in 1992, the Deputy Collector held the land belonging to the respondents. The impugned notice issued by the Collector which was the subject-matter of adjudication before the High Court in the writ petition, was issued in 1996. The High Court in the impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that though the Collector does have the power but that power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. According to the High Court, the same not having been exercised within a reasonable time, the proceedings must be