K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manan Mehta, learned AGP for Petitioner State and learned advocates for Respondents in captioned 3 petitions.

2. The 3 captioned petitions are taken out by the State (through Collector) against 3 different Orders passed by learned Tribunal in 3 different proceedings concerning different opponents. However, in view of the fact that learned Tribunal has passed common order in 3 Revision Applications and since similar and common issues are involved in these 3 petitions and the opponents have opposed the petitions on similar, common and identical grounds, the captioned petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

3. In this view of the matter, it would be profitable and convenient to summarize relevant facts involved in these 3 cases.

4. So far as Special Civil Application No. 547 of 2010 is concerned, the State is aggrieved by common order dated 28.11.2005 passed by learned Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN B.S. No. 220 of 1995, Revision Application No. 222 of 1995 and Revision Application No. 223 of 1995. The said 3 Revision Applications were taken out by private opponents in captioned 3 petitions and the learned Tribunal allowed the said Revision Applications vide its common order dated 28.11.2005 wherein learned Tribunal accepted the objections raised by Revisionist against the proceedings instituted for cancellation of sale transaction and consequential entry mutated in Revenue Record. The revisionist challenged the proceedings instituted by Mamlatdar/Deputy Collector, essentially on the ground that the proceedings were hit by inordinate, abnormal and unreasonable delay. In all 3 cases, the proceedings were instituted after delay of more than 5 years. The learned Tribunal considered the said contention raised by the revisionist and relying on the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Raghav Natha and Others decisions, the learned Tribunal allowed the Revision Application holding that the proceedings were vitiated on account of inordinate delay. The Petitioner State felt aggrieved by the said common order dated 28.11.2005 passed by learned Tribunal. Hence, these petitions.

5. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that even present petitions are also inordinately delayed inasmuch as the petitioner State has filed present petitions after unreasonable delay of almost 5 years.

5.1 In that view of the matter, the Respondents have opposed the petitions on the ground that such highly belated petitions do not deserve to be entertained and the same may be rejected on the said ground.

5.2 Having regard to the said vital features of present proceedings viz. (i) that the original proceedings came to be instituted by Mamlatdar/Deputy Collector, after unreasonable, abnormal and inordinate delay of more than 5 years in each case and (ii) even present petitions came to be preferred after delay of almost 5 years, this Court is of the view that the grievance and objections raised by the petitioner State against common order of learned Tribunal, does not deserve to be entertained, more particularly when the petitioner State slept over the said decision of the learned Tribunal for almost 5 years suddenly woke up from its slumber and filed present petitions without offering any explanation for the delay caused in challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

6. In this context, it would not be out of place to mention relevant facts involved in these 3 cases, which would demonstrate that the decision by learned Tribunal holding that the initiation of proceedings, was hit by inordinate delay, is justified and the said decision of learned Tribunal does not suffer from any error- either of law or of jurisdiction.

(i) SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 547 OF 2010

7. So far as Special Civil Application No. 547 of 2010 is concerned, the land in question is block No. 78 admeasuring 1.53.78 hecs. situated at Village Devadh, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat.

7.1 The Respond