RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) THE matter is being adjourned from time to time starting from 16. 6. 2000. At one stage, i. e. on 4. 8. 2000, it was given out by Mr. Y. N. Oza that he would like to file a Civil Application for bringing necessary amendment; then the matter was adjourned to 18. 8. 2000. Time was sought on behalf of Mr. Oza on 18. 8. 2000, whereupon as a last opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 25. 8. 2000. On 15. 9. 2000, arguments were heard in part, at which stage learned Assistant Govt. Pleader sought time to get instructions. Again on 17. 11. 2000, it was mentioned on behalf of learned advocate for the petitioner that it was not convenient for him to go on with the matter on that day. With consent, it was adjourned to 1. 12. 2000.

( 2 ) TODAY, when the matter is called out it is given out that a letter was addressed to the present President of Uma Small Scale Industrial Cooperative Society Limited on 2. 9. 2000, a xerox copy of which is produced which is taken on record. It is also given out that learned advocate for the petitioner has not received any instructions. For want of instructions it is not possible for learned advocate for the petitioner to go on with the matter. It is also stated that Mr. Y. N. Oza, learned advocate has not come to Court today. Looking to the earlier record of the matter, the matter is not required any further adjournment.

( 3 ) ON perusal of the papers it is clear that granting of any relief as prayed for by the petitioner would amount to perpetuating illegality which is committed by the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE petition is filed challenging the order dated 30. 8. 1989 passed by the Collector, Surat which was confirmed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) by an order dated 31. 1. 1991. The effect of the aforesaid two orders was that the order passed by the Special Recovery Officer, Cooperative Societies, respondent no. 3 herein was cancelled. The petitioner based its challenge on the basis that the orders in question are violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also based its challenge on the ground that exercise of powers by respondent authorities suo motu under sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is ex face bad and contrary to the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others, reported in 1987 (2) GLR 992. The petitioner also placed reliance on two other judgments of this Court in the case of Bipinchandra G. Dalal and another v. State of Gujarat and others, 1987 (2) GLH 127; and 1989 (1) GLH 177. The arguments of the petitioner is that the power under sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is required to be exercised within a reasonable time. The petitioner also drew attention of the Court to a judgement of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5516 of 1990, a copy of which is produced at Annexure c to the petition.

( 5 ) THE petition is filed through the President of the Cooperative society, who purchased the land situated at village Bhatar, Taluka Chorasi, District Surat bearing survey nos. 29, 23 + 24 admeasuring 0. 93. 08; 0. 92. 07 and 5 acres 25 gunthas. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner offered a price of Rs. 8,25,000. 00, and the respondent passed the order dated 22. 5. 9181. It is thereafter that the District Collector, respondent no. 1 issued notice on 16th June 1989 under sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in suo motu exercise of powers. By said notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why auction sale certificate should not be cancelled. Finally, the District Collector, Surat passed an order on 30. 8. 1989 cancelling the said auction sale certificate issued by respondent no. 3. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Collector before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, which came to be confirmed by an order dated 31. 1. 1991.

( 6 ) THE order of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document