1. By way of the first petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No.2959 of 2010, 20 petitioners have sought to challenge the order dated 26.12.2008 of Secretary (Appeals) of Revenue Department of the State Government and the order dated 10.12.2003 of Collector, Surat which is confirmed by the afore-mentioned order of the Secretary. The impugned order of the Secretary was made in Revision under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (for short, “the BLR Code”) and the petitioners herein were the applicants before the Secretary.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that land admeasuring 2.7 hectres 40 sq. mtrs. falling in survey No.89/1 of Alathan, Tal. Chaurasiya, District Surat was auctioned on 18.5.1981 by Special Recovery Officer under the Co-operative Societies Act, even as the land was covered by the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and no permission thereunder was obtained. Taking it to be an attempt at defeating the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, the matter was taken into suo moto revision by the Collector, Surat and the auction was cancelled by order dated 30.9.1989. The buyer of that land, namely, Ravidarshan Co-operative Housing Society, filed a revision application from the aforesaid order dated 30.9.1989 of the Collector and that application was rejected by order dated 15.3.1995 of Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes). The matter was carried to this Court and in LPA No.278 of 2003 in SCA No.7687 of 1995, the matter was remanded for hearing and fresh decision under section 211 of the BLR Code. Again, the Collector made order dated 10.12.2003 cancelling the auction dated 18.5.1981 and the petitioners again approached the Secretary (Appeals) by way of revision application accompanied with applications for condonation of delay and stay of the order dated 18.5.1981. Orders impugned in the present petitions are the order dated 10.12.2003 and the orders made in the petitioners' revision applications.

3. According to the elaborate impugned judgment, the petitioners were permitted to make oral and written submissions and the original owner of the land in question, being a party to the proceeding, was also heard. One of the important issues raised against the revision application was the issue of locus standi of the petitioners, in view of the fact that the original auction purchaser co-operative society had not challenged the order dated 10.12.2003 of the Collector; and the petitioners were stated to have not even produced sufficient evidence of being members or plot holders of that co-operative society. In fact, the original owner of the land claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the land in question.

4. During the course of admission hearing of the petitions, learned Government Pleader Mr. Jani, appearing for the State, also raised the issue of locus standi of the petitioners and it was heard in extenso as the preliminary issue, even as the impugned orders were stated to be otherwise also reasonable and just. It was submitted by Mr. Jani that, as discussed in the impugned judgment, law regarding status of a member of a co-operative society was settled by the Supreme Court in Daman Singh and others v. State of Punjab [AIR 1985 SC 973] and reiterated in State of U.P. v. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees' Co-operative Society Ltd. [(1997) 3 SCC 681]. Even the other peripheral arguments for the petitioners were now covered by recent decision of the Apex Court in Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Urban) [AIR 2005 SC 2306], according to the submission. The important observations made therein read as under:

“12. ........ Daman Singh does not indicate that the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws for that matter, have to be given the go-by, merely because the particular bye-law or action of the Society may not accord with our concept of fairness or propriety in terms of the rights available to an ordinary citizen. Therefore, in the light of the observati