The delay of 11 years in exercising suo motu powers renders such actions arbitrary, violating established legal rights under registered sale deeds.

JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Polytechnic, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/SNR 76-2008.

2. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the present application may be summarized as under;

2.1 On 30.01.1968, the land bearing Survey No.59/paiki/1 Moje Ghanshyampur, Taluka: Limbdi, District: Surendranagar was recorded in the name of one Raja Bechar as the measurement register was made applicable in the village: Ghanshyampur.

2.2 On 20.09.1991, the names of legal heirs and representatives of Raja Bechar were recorded in the revenue record upon the sad demise of Raja Bechar.

2.3 On 19.03.1990, the writ applicants purchased the land bearing Survey No.59/paiki/1 Moje Ghanshyampur, Taluka: Limbdi, District: Surendranagar admeasuring 8 Acre 32 Gunthas from the heirs and legal representatives of Raja Bechar vide registered sale deed dated 19.03.1990.

2.4 On 21.09.1991, pursuant to the aforesaid sale transaction, an entry being Mutation Entry No.650 came to be recorded in the revenue record, which came to be certified on 24.05.1992.

2.5 On 29.01.2003, the respondent No.3-Assistant Collector issued notice of default (Sharat Bhang) Case No.1063 to the writ applicants on the basis of the report submitted by the Mamlatdar, Limbdi that the land in question is of a new tenure, and by committing breach of conditions, the same was purchased by the writ applicants.

2.6 On 30.11.2006, the respondent No.3- Assistant Collector, without examining the records. only on the basis of the statement made by the writ applicants that they are illiterate persons unknown of law, and if there is any mistake occurred on their part, they may be forgiven, proceeded to observe that the land in question is a new tenure land and ordered to vest the land to the Government.

2.7 Being aggrieved, the writ applicants challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2006 before the respondent No.2- Collector, Surendranagar by filing Land Acquisition Disputes Case No.43/2007-08.

2.8 The respondent No.2-Collector, Surendranagar vide order dated 30.08.2008, rejected the Land Disputes Case No.43 of 2007-08 only on the ground that the writ applicants made statement before the respondent No.3, and therefore, the order of the respondent No.3 is legal and correct.

2.9 Being aggrieved, the writ applicants challenged the order dated 30.08.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1-SSRD by filing revision being MVV/JMN/SNR76-2008. The respondent No.1-SSRD, vide its order dated 30.05.2012, rejected the revision application filed by the writ applicants and confirmed the orders passed by the respondent No.3-Assistant Collector and the respondent No.2-Collector.

2.10 Being aggrieved, the writ applicants are here before this Court with the present application.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Pitambar Abhichandani for learned advocate Ms. Kitty Mehta appearing for the writ applicants has reiterated the facts narrated herein above and submits that the impugned order passed by the SSRD, confirming the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector, is unjust, arbitrary, perverse, illegal, unreasonable and contrary to law, and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that the respondent No.1-SSRD has grossly erred in rejecting the revision application filed by the writ applicants solely on the ground that the land in question is of new tenure and the same was purchased by th