ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of preferring present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for the following main relief/s:

(a) To quash and set aside the impugned dated 16.11.2006 as per Annexure-K made by the Joint Secretary (Appeal) of the Revenue Department of the Respondent No.1 rejecting the Revision Application No.83/2000 of the petitioners and confirming the order dated 22.11.2000 made by the respondent no.2, the Collector, Banaskantha granting land admeasuring 4000 sq. mts out of survey no.140 of village Kumbhariya in favour of the respondent no.3 Trust, as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void; and

(b) To allow the Revision Application No.83/2000 made by the petitioners before the respondent no.1 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.11.2000 made by the respondent no.2, the Collector, Banaskantha granting land admeasuring 4000 sq. mts out of survey no.140 of village Kumbhariya in favour of the respondent no.3 Trust, as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void;

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. B. N. Patel for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for respondent No.3.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioners has referred the facts mentioned in the memo of the petition and submitted that the Deputy Collector, Palanpur assigned land admeasuring 4 Acres and 24 Gunthas out of Survey No.140/A of village Kumbhariya, Taluka Danta (it shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘subject land’ for brevity) to the village site. Thereafter, the said land has been sub-divided into 35 plots and put to an auction by the concerned Village Panchayat. The petitioners have purchased the said plots through an auction by paying the amount of full consideration to the concerned village Panchayat. Before confirming the sale, the concerned Village Panchayat had also obtained permission from the Taluka Development Officer, Danta, who, vide order dated 18.08.1998 granted permission to the concerned Village Panchayat to sell the said plots to the petitioners.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the Deputy Collector, Palanpur took the said decision of TDO into suo motu revision and issued notice to the concerned parties and ultimately, vide order dated 12.07.1999, set aside the confirmation of sale of 35 plots through auction proceedings in favour of the petitioners. He submits that without informing the concerned village Panchayat and behind their back, the Deputy Collector, Palanpur, vide order dated 24.07.1998, amended the original assignment of land admeasuring 4 Acres 24 Gunthas to 2 Acres and 24 Gunthas as the Gamtal of concerned Gram Panchayat. He submits that the aforesaid order of amendment came to be passed by the Deputy Collector behind the back of the village people, concerned Gram Panchayat and after issuance of notification for disposal of the plots through an auction. He submits that though the aforesaid order came to be passed on 24.07.1998, it was received by the concerned Gram Panchayat after holding of the auction on 27.07.1998. He further submits that before passing the aforesaid order dated 24.07.1998, the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 24.07.1998 passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Collector and along with the said appeal, an application for stay of the aforesaid order was also preferred. However, the said application seeking stay of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector has been rejected by the Collector vide order dated 14.12.1999. He further submits that during the interregnum period, the Collector passed an order dated 24.09.1999, whereby, the order passed by the Deputy Collector for assignment of land for the use of the concerned Gram