1. Rule. Ms.Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. G.D. Acharya, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.4.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided.

3. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 9-7-2012 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (respondent No.1), whereby the Revision Application filed by the petitioners has been rejected.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, relevant for the decision of the petition are that, land bearing Traverse Survey No.155/1, situated in village Kidana, Taluka Gandhidham was allotted to the petitioners for the purposes of salt-crushing and storage purposes, vide order of the Collector (respondent No.2) dated 15-10-2007. While granting the land to petitioner No.2, the Collector had called for the opinions of various authorities and, after considering the same, sanction from the Revenue Department of the State Government was obtained. One of the conditions of allotment contained in the order dated 15-10-2007 was condition No.6, which enjoins upon petitioner No.2 to put up construction within the stipulated period of two years, as mentioned in the allotment order. The Collector issued a Show Cause Notice dated 29-6-2010 to petitioner No.2 calling for an explanation why proceedings for breach of condition No.6 should not be initiated. According to the Collector, petitioner No.2 had failed to put up construction within a period of two years from the date of the grant of the land. Petitioner No.2 gave a reply to the Show Cause Notice on 12-7-2010, along-with certain documents. However, the Collector, vide order dated 11-3-2011, directed that the land in question be vested in the State Government, for breach of conditions Nos.1,3,4,5,6 and 8 of the allotment order. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner No.2 preferred a Revision Application before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department (respondent No.1) that has been rejected by the impugned order dated 9-7-2012, confirming order passed by the Collector. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Mr. D.K.Puj, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated 29-6-2010 issued to petitioner No.2 is only regarding the breach of condition No.6 of the allotment order which stipulates that construction is to be put up within a period of two years. However, the Collector, while passing the order dated 11-3-2011 has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and has directed that the land be vested in the State Government on the ground that there is a breach of conditions Nos.1,3,4,5,6 and 8 of the allotment order. It is further submitted that as the Show Cause Notice was issued only with regard to condition No.6, the Collector could not have passed an order for breach of any other condition, as no Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioners for the other conditions. Respondent No.1 has erroneously confirmed the order of the Collector in this regard. It is further contended that in another case where the facts were identical and the Collector had passed an order beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice, the very same Secretary had quashed and set aside the said order of the Collector, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice; whereas, in the case of the petitioner a diametrically opposite stand is being taken and the order of the Collector which is beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice has been confirmed. Nine revision applications against the orders of the Collector, on the very same ground, have been dismissed, whereas in one case the revision application has been a