Bela M. Trivedi, J.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 - SSRD in Revision Application No.36 of 2006, the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 - Collector in Appeal No.33/2005 and the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the respondent No.3 - Deputy Collector, whereby the land in question allotted to the petitioner was directed to be vested in Government in the proceedings initiated under Section 79A of the Bombay Land Revenue Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act").

2. The chronology of events, as emerging from the record, is that the petitioner was granted the land bearing Survey No.1265 paiki ad-measuring 1400 sq. mtr., situated at Village Bhachaou, Taluka Bhuj, District Kutch for industrial purpose for setting up Ginning factory by the Collector, vide the order dated 20.9.1982 (Annexure-A), subject to the conditions mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had started industrial activity relating to the Ginning business by constructing a shed over the said land, however, since the concerned revenue authority had failed to issue sanad in favour of the petitioner, the said land could not be mutated in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner vide the Application dated 15.3.1989 had requested the concerned Nagarpanchayat to issue necessary development permission for the construction of industrial shed, however, the same was denied on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner, therefore, could not put up the construction within the stipulated time, as per the conditions mentioned in the order dated 20.9.1982. It appears that the respondent No.2 District Collector, therefore, issued the notice on 8.1.1991 (Annexure-B), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the land should not vest in the Government, the petitioner having committed the breach of Condition No.4 of the allotment order dated 20.9.1982. The petitioner had filed reply in response to the said show-cause notice, however, the respondent No.2 vide the order dated 20.6.1991 (Annexure-E) declared that the petitioner had committed breach of Condition No.4 of the original allotment and, therefore, directed to vest the land in question in the State Government. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the revision application before the respondent No.1 under Section 211 of the said Act, who vide the order dated 4.7.1991 set aside the order dated 20.6.1991 passed by the respondent No.2 and remanded the case for deciding afresh. After the remand, the respondent No.2 vide the order dated 27.1.1993 (Annexure-G) directed that the petitioner shall complete the construction on the land in question within six months after the issuance of sanad. According to the petitioner, he had time and again made representation to the Mamlatdar for issuance of sanad, however, he was not issued the same. The petitioner, thereafter applied for change of use of the land from industrial to commercial, to the District Collector on 25.9.1996, as the petitioner was desirous of manufacturing the cement blocks and pipes, however, the said application also remained pending without any decision.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 2001, the entire Kutch was hit by massive earthquake and the petitioner suffered heavy loss in the business. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 Mamlatdar with ulterior motive issued the notice on 22.1.2002 (Annexure-L), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the land should not vest in the Government, the petitioner having committed the breach of Condition No.4 of the allotment order. The petitioner had responded to the said notice giving reply on 23.1.2002 contending, inter alia, that the respondent No.4 did not have the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. At the same time, the peti