PATEL DWARKADAS K Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioners above-named have preferred this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 read with Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat at Annexure 'D' to the petition dated 22-3-1990 and that of the Dy. Collector, Mehsana Annexure 'B' dated 30-6-1982 and to confirm the order of the Collector annexed at Annexure 'C' dated 20-9-1989. The facts may be briefly dated as follows :

(2.) The matter relates to village Vihar of Vijapur Taluka in Mehsana District. It seems that under the scheme of the respondent-State, some plots of the said village were required to be allotted to the persons eligible to get them under the said scheme on public auction. The records also show that public auction was held accordingly and after completion of the period of one month, the said auction was confirmed on 1-4-1981 under Order at Annexure 'A' to the petition at page 18. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 herein had taken out certain objections stating that the concerned authority had not followed proper procedure for holding the said public auction, and therefore, the auction may be treated to be illegal, and therefore, the same be set aside. It was also contended that certain candidates not present at the auction were also shown to be present, and therefore, there was further defect in the procedure to be followed at the public auction. It was further contended that name of the father of the objector was shown at Sr. No. 44, and therefore, he was interested in the said land, and therefore, he was required to be heard and the objections were also required to be considered. The learned Dy. Collector at Mehsana conducted an enquiry, and thereafter, he passed an order dated 30-6-1982 setting aside the aforesaid public auction and the order dated 1-4-1981 confirming the said sale and directed the Taluka Development Officer to hold fresh auction and do the needful after following the procedure according to law.

(3.) The present petitioners were not satisfied by the said order of the Dy. Collector, Mehsana dated 30-9-1989. Therefore, they preferred an appeal before the Collector being appeal No. Ill of 1982. The learned Collector heard the parties and passed an order dated 20-9-1989 under which the learned Collector allowed the said appeal of the present petitioner, and set aside the order of the learned Dy. Collector dated 30-6-1982. He was also pleased to confirm the order of the Taluka Development Officer, Vijapur dated 1-4-1981 under which the said public auction and sale were confirmed. Respondent No. 5 felt dissatisfied by the said order of the Collector. Therefore, he preferred revision application before the Government. There the matter was heard and the order was passed on 22-3-1990 under which the Government allowed the said revision application of respondent No. 5 and set aside the order of the Collector dated 20-9-1989 and confirmed the order of the Dy. Collector, Mehsana dated 30-6-1982.