JUDGMENT :

The subject matter of challenge in the captioned writ petition, is the order dated 18.10.2007 passed by the Collector – respondent no.2. Challenge is also to the order dated 16.06.2006 passed by the District Development Officer i.e. respondent no.3 (on the basis of the Resolution no.113 dated 15.04.2006). Vide above-referred order dated 18.10.2007, the Collector, has quashed and set aside order dated 31.12.1993 and order dated 15.02.1994 passed by the Mamlatdar, Daskroi and Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant respectively. Consequential entry no.5664 and entry no.5665, both dated 18.02.1994 respectively, were also directed to be quashed and set aside. Further, the Collector ordered that in the village form no.7/12, the land be shown as new tenure land. The Mamlatdar, Daskroi vide order dated 31.12.1993, has directed removal of the words ‘new tenure’ from the revenue record and on the basis whereof, the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, vide order dated 15.02.1994 withdrew the notice for the breach of conditions.

2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2007, has filed the captioned writ petition raising various contentions including the contention that the Collector, after a lapse of almost 14 years, could not have taken in revision the aforestated orders and the consequential entries.

3. Mr Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr Shamik Bhatt, learned advocate for Singhi & Co. for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to the order dated 31.12.1993, submitted that apropos the remand, the Mamlatdar, Daskroi, has passed a detailed order considering all the aspects and it is held that in 7/12 form of survey no.414 (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”) the endorsement ‘new tenure’, is without any basis. With this, the Mamlatdar, Daskroi, directed removal of the endorsement ‘new tenure’ in the revenue record of the land in question. It is submitted that the petitioner company had purchased the land in question by way of a registered sale deed and pursuant to which, entry no.5700 was mutated in the revenue record, followed by certification on 16.04.1994 by the Mamlatdar.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner, applied for non-agricultural permission under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and various opinions were sought from various offices of Deputy Collector, Collector etc. The Deputy Collector, opined that the land is of the old tenure and there is no objection, if the land is converted to non-agricultural use. It is submitted that proceedings for non-agricultural use, culminated into passing of the order dated 18.06.2006, though all the authorities had given positive opinion and even the District Panchayat, recommended grant of non-agricultural use permission, imposing penalty. In the interregnum, the Collector, had addressed a communication to the District Development Officer i.e. respondent no.3, inter alia, informing that the order of the Mamlatdar, Daskroi dated 13.12.1993 as well as order dated 15.02.1994 of the Deputy Collector, Viramgam Prant, are tested. With this, the office of the Collector, gave its negative opinion with a further direction that the concerned shall be informed that there shall not be any construction carried out.

4.1 It is submitted that the Collector, addressed a letter to the District Development Officer – respondent no.3 on 13.04.2006; however, Collector did not do anything for one and half year and thereafter, issued show cause notice only on 17.09.2007. It is submitted t