JUDGMENT :

A.P. THAKER, J.

1. In view of order dated 13.3.2017 passed in Civil Application No. 1282 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No. 142 of 2001, both these Special Civil Applications are listed and heard together.

FACTS OF SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 142 of 2001

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by learned SSRD dated 13/16.10.2001, the petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application No. 142 of 2001 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

“10.…………

(a) Be pleased to admit this petition.

(b) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no. 1 dated 13-16/10/2000 and direct the respondent Village Panchayat to refund the amount taken from 16 persons and hold the auction for sale of plot again in consultation with the competent authority pursuant to the order passed by the District Panchayat on 25-10-1999 after giving due and adequate publicity of auction proceedings amongst village people.

(c) …………

(d) ………..”

3. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

3.1 That Notification was issued on 30.1.1999 for auction of 16 plots of Survey No. 94/2 belonging to Village Timbdi. On 21.3.1999, publicity regarding auction was made. On 22.3.1999, within a day, auction proceedings took place. The upset price was fixed at Rs.15 per sq.mtr. And plots were given to 15 members by taking Rs.16.50 ps. per sq.mtr. In fact, the land is touching national highway and it can easily fetch Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- per plot which is approximately 200 sq.mtr. in size. It is alleged that the Talati-cum-mantri, in connivance with Deputy Sarpanch, without adequate publicity of the plots belonging to Panchayat held auction of plots amongst limited number of persons. That 15 members of three families alone could bid and later on the same was finalized in their favour by accepting meager price of Rs.1500 to 1600 per plot. That on 28.4.1999, when village people came to know about sale of panchayat plots, they made representation to competent authority. That on 3.8.1999 and 21.9.1999, Sarpanch and members of Village Panchayat submitted their representation and affidavit respectively to the Taluka Development Officer, Morbi, and requested him to quash and set aside the auction proceedings by declaring the same as null and void.

3.2 That District Panchayat called for the record and proceedings from the office of Village Panchayat and Taluka Panchayat and examined all the documents and came to the conclusion that entire proceedings of 16 plots is undertaken without healthy competition amongst the bidders and thereby declared the proceedings as irregular.

3.3 That successful bidders filed Civil Suit No. 345 of 199 to 355 of 1999 in the Court of 2nd Civil Judge at Morbi and prayed for stay of the order passed on 25.10.1999, which prayer came to be rejected by learned Civil Judge. That respondent no. 6 only filed revision petition under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code before learned SSRD, who vide his order dated 13.10.2000 set aside the order passed by District Panchayat on 25.10.1999.

3.4 According to the petitioners, they came to know about said order around 20.12.2000 and later on decided to file present petition.

3.5 The petitioners have contended that entire auction proceeding was not proper and no adequate publicity was made regarding auction and due to that other persons could not take part in the auction. It is also contended that respondent no. 6 has suppressed the fact of filing of Suit before learned Civil Court in a revision preferred before learned SSRD. It is also contended that the petitioners were not joined in the suit proceedings and the impugned order was passed. It is also contended that the plots were sold at throw away price, affecting the revenue of the panchayat. It is also contended that there is no construction made on the plots and only 1/4th price is paid to