D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE prayer of the petitioners in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 30-9-1989 Annexure-B passed by the Collector, Surat, in Suo Motu Case No. 64 of 1989 and revisional order dated 23-3-1995. Annexure-A passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of revisional power under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under :the petitioner-Society is a registered society under the Gujarat Co-operative societies Act, 1961. One Bhagabhai Nathabhai was a debtor of the creditor- society to the tune of Rs. 264. 85 ps. for which Mohanbhai Vithalbhai, owner of the land was guarantor. For recovery of the said debt of the creditor-society, the Special Recovery Officer, Surat, held public auction on 14-4-1981 in which the petitioner-society was the highest bidder at Rs. 1,80,000/ -. Vide order dated 18-5-1981 the Special Recovery Officer, Surat, accepted the highest bid of the petitioner and confirmed the sale. Pursuant thereto mutation entry dated 23-5-1981 was made in the revenue records vide Annexure-C. The petitioner society was thus a bona fide purchaser for value without any notice of any irregularity or inaccuracy in the sale proceedings. The petitioner-Society was put in possession of the land so purchased in the auction conducted by the Special recovery Officer, Surat. The petitioner-Society thereafter obtained permission from gram panchayat to raise construction which was sanctioned vide Resolution dated 24-11-1981. 180 residential units including bungalows were constructed thereafter by the petitioner over this land. The Collector, Surat, received from the competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling Act, a letter dated 22-9- 1989 that application under Sec. 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, 1976, received from Mohanbhai Vithalbhai was pending and was not disposed of. Thereafter, the Collector vide his order dated 30-9-1989 Annexure- b set aside the auction sale in favour of the petitioner-society and directed the creditor-society to refund to the petitioner-society the amount paid to the creditor- society. The sale was set aside and entry in the record was ordered to be expunged. In so doing, the Collector did not issue any notice to the petitioner-Society nor opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It was thus an order of the collector violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner-Society came to know the Collectors order dated 16-11-1989 in the last week of June, 1994. Thereafer, application for copy was moved. Copy was supplied on 14-7-1994. Appeal was filed on 6-8-1994 by the petitioner under Sec. 203 of the Bombay land Revenue Code before the respondent No. 1. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 23-3-1995. Hence this writ petition.

( 3 ) NO counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. As such, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. P. were heard and the record was examined so also the impugned orders. The main contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners were as under : (I) That the Collector could exercise suo motu revisional power under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code but this power should have been exercised within a reasonable time and not after a lapse of about eight years. (II) that no notice was issued by the collector for exercising suo motu power to the petitioner. (III) that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner against the proposed exercise of suo motu powers under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land revenue Code. (IV) that the persons likely to be affected by the impugned orders under sec. 211, namely, the petitioner-Society and the persons who were allotted and handed over units constructed over the land in suit were not given opportunity of hearing. (V) that the subsequent events which occurred during these eight years were not taken into consideration by the Collector as well as by the respondent N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document