1. The present petitioners are the legal heirs of late Shri Mamaiya Shardulbhai, who had assailed the order dated 16/24.06.1997 (Annexure-E) passed by the Respondent no.1-the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SSRD’ for short) dismissing the Revision Application being No. 11/1993 and confirming the order dated 25.09.1990 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Collector in Appeal No. 449/1990.

2. The case of the petitioners in the nutshell is that the land in question bearing Survey No.265, admeasuring 10 acres situated at village Vanshyali was granted to the father of the petitioners i.e. Mamaiya Shardulbhai under the scheme floated by the State Government to rehabilitate the shepherds. The Assistant Collector, Mahuva having found that said Mamaiya Shardulbhai having transferred the said land to Maganbhai Lavjibhai and Dahyabhai Lavjibhai by executing two agreements to sell in respect of 5 acres of land to each of them and since both these persons were in possession of the said land, said Mamaiya Shardulbhai had committed breach of conditions of the allotment and therefore, the land was liable to be vested in the Government. The Assistant Collector accordingly passed the order on 21.06.1989. Being aggrieved by the said order, the said Mamaiya Shardulbhai filed an appeal being No. 4449/1990 before the Deputy Collector on the ground that the Assistant Collector had passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, said Mamaiya Shardulbhai did not remain present before the Collector also when the hearing was fixed and therefore, the Collector after taking into consideration the documents produced on record dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector vide the order dated 25.09.1990. The present petitioners on the death of said Mamaiya Shardulbhai filed Revision Application before the SSRD, who vide the impugned order dated 16/24.06.1997 dismissed the said Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by the Collector.

3. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioners that the said Mamaiya, the father of the petitioners was allotted the land in question in the scheme floated by the State Government for the rehabilitation of the shepherds. The Assistant Collector without granting opportunity of hearing to him held that said Mamaiya Shardulbhai had executed sale-deeds in favour of Maganbhai Lavjibhai and Dahyabhai Lavjibhjai. He further submitted that said Mamaiya Shardulbhai also could not remain present before the Collector and therefore, his appeal was dismissed by the Collector. According to him, the father of the petitioners was very much staying at village and was also cultivating the land in question and there was no breach of condition of the allotment. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha reported in 1969 GLR 992, he submitted that when the period of limitation was not prescribed, the Authority has to exercise powers of Revisions under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Code’ for short) within reasonable time. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Patel Raghav Natha Vs. G.F. Mankodi, Commissioner, Rajkot reported in 1965 GLR 34 to submit that father of the petitioners was issued Sanad in the form of agreement and therefore, the Respondent Authorities had no power to cancel the said Sanad under section 211 of the Code. Learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya has also relied upon various other judgments to submit that the concerned Authority has to exercise revisional powers within reasonable time.

4. However, learned AGP Mr. Venugopal Patel for the Respondent-State submitted that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three authorities that the father of the petitioners had transferred the land in question to third party,