Important Point – If action of initiation of show-cause notice is without jurisdiction or ex-facie barred by delay, court may entertain petition under Article 226 of Constitution.

Jayant Patel, J. (Oral) - The present appeal is directed against the order dated 7.4.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Special Civil Application No. 4370 of 2011, whereby the learned Single, Judge for the reasons record in the order, has dismissed the petition.

2. The short facts of the case appears to be that 5 parcels of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.111 admeasuring 39 acres - 60 gunthas situated at Village: Madhapar, Taluka & District: Rajkot were sold by four persons (1) Jagjivan Kalidas Thakker, (2) Patel Kana Arjan, (3) Khodidas Vashram Thakker and (4) Patel Premji Ganesh to five persons, namely, Sudhaben Buddhidhan Modi, Bhupatlal Chaganlal Shah, Shantaben Dhirajlal Shah, Minaben Nikhilbhai Shah and Niranjan Chimanlal Maniar. Registered sale deed Nos. 471, 430, 429, 428 and 431 were executed on 2.1.1970, 31.1.1970, 30.1.1970, 31.1.1970 and 31.1.1970, respectively. Revenue entries were mutated in the revenue record vide Village Entry Nos. (1) 471 dated 4.12.1973 for land admeasuring 5 acres - 0 gunthas (2) 472 dated 4.12.1973 for land admeasuring 5 acres- 0 gunthas (3) 473 dated 4.12.1973 for land admeasuring 2 acres 30 gunthas (4) 474 dated 4.12.1973 for land admeasuring 2 acres 10 gunthas, and (5) 475 dated 4.12.1973 for land admeasuring 2 acres 20 gunthas. After the entries were mutated in the revenue record, one of the sellers, Khodidas Vashram Thakker, expired on 28.6.1994. Other executant of the sale deed expired prior thereto. During the life-time of all the executant's of the sale deed, no dispute was raised by any of the sellers for the legality and validity of the sale. In June, 2002 the heirs of the original owner of the land sold the remaining land of Survey No. 111 admeasuring 17 acres 38 gunthas and the revenue entries were also mutated for such purpose vide Entry Nos. 1464, 1465 and 1466 since the transactions were by registered sale deed. On 30th March 2005, the appellant No. 5 purchased the land admeasuring 2 acres 20 gunthas from Niranjan Chimanlal Maniar, respondent No. 14, by registered sale deed bearing No. 2119 and the entry bearing No. 5466 dated 27.2.2009 was mutated in the revenue record and the said entry came to be certified on 30th July 2009. Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the land admeasuring 2 acres 10 gunthas from Minaben Nikhilbhai Shah, respondent No. 13 , by registered sale deed bearing No. 3065 and the entry bearing No. 5465 dated 27.2.2009 was mutated in the revenue record, which came to be certified on 30th July 2009. On 19.5.2005, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the land admeasuring 5 acres 0 gunthas from Rajesh Buddhidhan Modi, respondent No. 8 being legal heir of Sudhaben Buddhidhan Modi by registered sale deed bearing No. 3410 and the entry bearing No. 5469 dated 27.2.2009 was mutated in the revenue record, which came to be certified on 30th July 2009. On 10.8.2006, the appellant No. 3 purchased the land admeasuring 5 acres 0 gunthas from Shardaben Bhupatlal Shah, being legal heir of deceased Bhuptlal Chaganlal Shah by registered sale deed bearing No. 6790 and the entry bearing No. 5467 dated 27.2.2009 was mutated in the revenue record which came to be certified on 30th July 2009. On 10.8.2006, the appellant No. 4 purchased the land admeasuring 2 acres 30 gunthas from Jyotiben Umeshbhai Rajyaguru, respondent No. 11, who had purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 4.10.2005 bearing registration No. 7307 from Sandip Dhirajlal Shah and Monisha Sandip Shah, legal heirs of deceased Shantaben Dhirajlal Shah The appellant No. 4 purchased the said land by registered sale deed and the entry bearing No. 5729 dated 13.8.2009 was mutated in the revenue record which came to be certified on 19.9.2009.

3. It appears that the respondent No. 5 filed Special Civil Application No. 235 of 2011 in this court inter alia praying for a direction to complete the inquiry as per the report dated 7.11.2009 and since the appellant came to know about the a