The central legal point established in the judgment is that actions under the Gharkhed Ordinance must be initiated within a reasonable time, and the concept of reasonable time is crucial in determining the validity of proceedings initiated under the ordinance.

JUDGMENT :

1. At the outset learned Advocate Mr.Vimal Purohit has submitted that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgement dated 15.03.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.17606 of 2019.

2. By way of this petition the petitioners have challenged the show cause notice dated 19.07.2019 issued by the District Collector, Porbandar for the alleged breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agriculture Lands Ordinance, 1949 (for short, `Gharkhed Ordinance’) in suo motu proceedings being Jamin-3/F.A. No.132/2019/Saurashtra Gharkhed/Ord./Case No.05 of 2019 under Section 75 of the Gharkhed Ordinance.

3. Since the issue involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass and, therefore, with the consent of Mr.Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Parikh, learned AGP for the State respondents, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. Issue RULE. Mr.Parikh, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of State respondents.

5. The facts, as narrated in the memo of the petition are that land bearing survey No.1225 (Old Survey No.143/2), admeasuring 2-49-74 Hec.-Are-Sq.Mtrs. situated at Village Adityana, Taluka Ranavav, District Porbandar was originally owned by Lilavanti Hiralal Manek i.e. respondent No.3 (who is deleted from the array of the parties as per order dated 11.12.2019 passed by this Court) from the original owners, pursuant to which Entry No.1906 dated 01.05.1964 was mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, M/s.Daudi Palverizing Works, through its partners - Daud Adamji and Nazarali Ibrahim (father of the present petitioners) purchased the land in question by way of a registered sale deed dated 30.06.1963 from one Lilavanti Hiralal Manek and Entry No.1907 to the said effect was mutated in the revenue record on 01.05.1964. It is the say of the petitioner that the partners of M/s.Daudi Palverizing Works waived their right from the land in question in favour of Hasim Nazarali and the present petitioner i.e. Jainu Nazarali and mutation entry in the revenue record was made vide Entry No.4089 dated 09.09.1987.

5.1 Thereafter, Hasim Nazarali had relinquished his rights in favour of the petitioners and the same was mutated, after undertaking due process of law in the revenue record vide Entry No.4644 dated 09.04.1992 and since then the land in question is owned and occupied by the petitioners.

5.2 The District Collector, Porbandar initiated proceedings under Section 75 of the Gharkhed Ordinance after a period of 55 years and issued a show cause notice dated 19.07.2019 to the petitioners for the alleged breach of Section 54 of the Gharkhed Ordinance. Hence, the present petition.

6. Mr.Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioners, in support of his contention relied upon the judgment dated 29.07.2015 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.798 of 2011. Learned advocate for the petitioners also relied upon t h e latest judgment dated 09.03.2022 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.2436 of 2017, wherein it is held that the reasonable time, which can be construed as reasonable period would be 3 years. By relying upon the aforesaid two judgments, the learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in the instant case, the respondent authority has exercised the suo motu powers after a period of 55 years and, therefore, the powers can be said to have been exercised beyond the reasonable period and hence, the proceedings based upon such exercise of powers are bad in law and deserve to be quashed and set aside.

6.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the land was originally purchased by father of the petitioners in the year 1963 and father of the petitioners transferred the land in favour of the petitioner and his brother. Thereafter, even his brother relinquished his right in favour of the petitioner. During all this period, the transaction in favour of father of the pet