The court emphasized that the delay in exercising powers and the lack of plausible explanation for such delay rendered the actions of the authorities invalid.

KS JHAVERI

1. Heard Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. N.D. Buch for Nanavaty Advocates for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Pujara as well as Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGPs appearing for respondents.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final judgement and order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13443 of 2009 and order dated 18.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No. 13444 to 13446 of 2009, the appellants have preferred the present appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2.1 The appellants filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge assailing the orders dated 02.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 1 – Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Applications and 27.10.2008 passed by respondent no. 2 – Collector in Suo Motu Revision proceedings. The learned Single Judge confirming the orders passed by respondents no. 1 & 2 dismissed the writ petitions.

2.2 The appellants herein had purchased land bearing Survey No. 231 from respondent no. 3 by registered sale deed for Rs. 12000/- on the basis of which, name of the appellants came to be entered in the revenue record. The respondent no. 2 thereafter issued a notice in exercise of the powers under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why eviction proceedings under Section 75 of the Rules should not be initiated against the appellants for breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement & Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 which was replied to by the appellants.

2.3 Respondent no. 2 vide order dated 27.10.2008 held that the transaction between the appellants and respondent no. 3 is in violation of the provisions of Land Revenue Code as well as against the provisions of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement & Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 and therefore entries in the revenue record were directed to be cancelled and so also transactions between the appellants and respondent no. 3. Revision Applications were therefore preferred by appellants against the said order passed by respondent no. 2 which was rejected by respondent no. 1. In view of the same, the writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge, order impugned whereof has been assailed by way of the present appeals.

3. Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has strongly argued that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by ignoring the fact that none of the authorities have assigned germane, cogent and convincing reasons for initiating suo motu revisional proceedings after a long period of more than two decades. He contended that the mutation entries of the year 1987 came to be taken into suo motu revision in the year 2008 and the said delayed initiation of the proceedings has not been properly explained by the authorities.

3.1 Mr. Nanavaty submitted that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon a decision of this Court which was passed in Special Civil Application No. 11825 of 2009. He submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2011(2) GLR 1676 against the order passed in the said writ petition reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge therein and therefore the decision of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11825 of 2009 cannot be said to be a good law. He submitted that the Appellate Bench of this Court, while considering the case on hand set aside the decision of the concerned authorities to compulsorily evict the petitioner therein after a lapse of 17 years.

3.2 In order to substantiate his submissions, Mr. Nanavaty has relied upon decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha reported in AIR 1969 SC 1279 as well as Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Oth