The Court emphasized the specific circumstances required for the invocation of Section 32(1B) and established the principle that the exercise of statutory powers must be within a reasonable time.

B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 5.10.1995 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/728/1992, whereby the Tribunal while allowing the said Revision Application has set aside the order dated 4.8.1992 passed by the Deputy Collector, Vadodara in Tenancy Appeal No. 16/1992, and confirmed the order dated 29.11.1991 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara in Tenancy Case No. 895/1989 (Remand Case No. 6408/1991), arising out of the suo motu proceedings undertaken by the Mamlatdar under Section 32(1B) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

2. The few facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Shankarbhai Bhikhabhai, who was allegedly occupying the lands bearing Survey Nos. 240, 241 and 253, admeasuring 2.05 acres, 1.19 acres and 1.28 acres respectively in Village Sama, which originally belonged to one Mirnuruddin Huseinkhan Nawab. As per the case of the petitioners, the said Shankarbhai Bhikhabhai was occupying the said lands as the protected tenant since 1951-52 till 1965 and thereby he had become the deemed purchaser of the said lands. However, the Mamlatdar by the order dated 1.4.1966 mutated the entry No. 1020, deleting the name of the said Shankarbhai Bhikhabhai from the record of rights, vide his order dated 3.3.1966. It is further case of the petitioners that the original owner thereafter sold out the lands in question by executing two different sale deeds in favour of one Laxmidas Zaverbhia and Shantibhai Laxmidas in respect of which necessary entries were also made in the record of rights. It appears that on the basis of one report sent by the R.T.S. Team, Unit No. 3, in the year 1989, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated the proceedings under Section 32(1B) of the said Act against the original owners, however, the said proceedings came to be dropped by the Mamlatdar vide the order dated 7.3.1990. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order had preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 25/90 before the Deputy Collector under Section 74 of the said Act, which came to be partly allowed. The Deputy Collector remanded the proceedings back to the Mamlatdar and ALT vide the order dated 14.2.1991. The Mamlatdar and ALT thereafter vide the order dated 29.11.1991 held that the tenant Shankarbhai Bhikhabhai had voluntarily surrendered his rights in the lands in question and that the original owner having sold out the lands in question to the third party, the provisions of Section 32(1B) did not apply to the lands in question. The Mamlatdar, therefore, withdrew the notice issued under the said provision. The aggrieved petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 16/1992 before the Deputy Collector, who vide the order dated 4.8.1992 allowed the said appeal and directed to fix the purchase price of the lands in question under Section 32G of the said Act. Against the said order passed by the Deputy Collector, the respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 preferred the Revision Application being No. 728/1992 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, who vide the order dated 5.10.1995 allowed the same and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector. Hence, the aggrieved petitioners have preferred the present petition.

3. The petition has been resisted by the concerned respondents, who are the legal heirs of the original purchaser Laxmidas Zaverbhai by filing reply denying the allegations made in the petition, and supporting the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners have filed the affidavit-in-rejoinder to the said reply filed by the respondents.

4. In the first limb of his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore, appearing with Mr. Deep Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly the deceased Shankarbhai Bhikhabhai was in occ