K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.R. Shah, learned advocate and Mr. Pathan, learned advocate for petitioners and Mr. H.J. Shah, learned advocate for private respondent and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP.

2. Though different Petitioners have filed present petitions and though they have challenged different orders passed by the authorities in respect of different parcels of land, the petitions are heard together and decided by this common order because the learned advocates for the petitioners have challenged the orders on similar and common grounds and the private respondents as well as learned AGP have also made common submissions to oppose the petitions. The principal contention in all the petitions is common inasmuch as the petitioners have challenged the order essentially on 2 grounds viz. (i) the action against impugned sale transactions could not have been initiated after unreasonable delay and (ii) Section 73(A) of Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") could not have been invoked and applied against the transactions executed by the petitioners.

3. So far as factual background involved in the petitions on hand is concerned, the parcels of land in respect of which dispute have arisen, are situate in different villages of erstwhile State of Rajpipala.

3.1 It has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioners and private respondents and learned AGP that the original land owners in respect of lands in question were tribal and they executed transactions with the petitioners without taking permission from competent authority under Section 73A of the Code.

3.2 After passage of more than 3 years, the authority under the Code issued notices to the petitioners calling for their reply as to why the transactions have been executed in breach of Section 73A of the Code. The petitioners submitted their replies in response to the notices.

3.3 Thereafter, the authority adjudicated the notices and passed orders against petitioners holding, inter-alia, that the transactions were executed without permission from the authority and that, therefore, the petitioners committed breach under Section 73A. The Competent Authority passed order and cancelled the transactions.

3.4 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority, the petitioners approach the Appellate authority and, thereafter the revisional authority.

3.5 Both the authorities respectively rejected the appeals and revisional applications filed by the petitioners.

3.6 Now concerned persons have taken out present petitions against the order passed by the first adjudicating authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority.

4. While assailing the impugned orders learned advocate for the petitioners would contend that the disputed transactions were executed before 4.4.1961 and that, therefore, the provisions under Section 73A of the Code would not be attracted and applicable in present cases. They would further contend that since the transactions were executed before 4.4.1961 there was no obligation on the parties to the transactions to seek permission from the authority and that, therefore, it cannot be said that the transactions were entered into in breach of Section 73A of the Code. Another contention which is urged by the petitioners against applicability of the Section 73A of the Code is that in the erstwhile State of Rajpipla, Survey Settlement was carried out and that, therefore, the provisions under Section 73A of the Code would not be applicable. The last contention, which the learned advocate for the petitioners raised, is on ground that the proceedings were instituted after unreasonable delay.

5. The learned advocate Mr. H.J. Shah for private respondents in Special Civil Application No. 1296 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 1291 of 2000. Other respondents have not entered appearance. Mr. Mehta, learned AGP and Mr. H.J. Shah, learned advocate opposed the submissions with reference to Section 7