VELAJI DHULAJI THAKOR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.

(2.) THE challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 17.06.2008, passed by the District Collector, Gandhinagar, rejecting the application of the petitioner for regularization of the land in question, and to orders dated 25.03.2009 and 12.01.2012, passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, rejecting the revision application and the application for review filed by the petitioner, respectively.

(3.) MR .Y.N.Ravani, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that even if it is assumed that no powers of review are conferred upon the revisional authority under Section 211 of the Code, the Court can still entertain the petition by looking into the legality of the orders dated 17.06.2008 and 25.03.2009 passed by the Collector and Secretary, respectively. It is contended that Special Civil Application No.4637 of 2010, was not decided on merits, therefore, the challenge to the abovementioned orders is not hit by resjudicata. It is further submitted that the petitioners can be relegated to the Secretary for fresh hearing as it was only a because a proper opportunity of hearing had not been granted to the petitioners before passing the order dated 25.03.2009, that the earlier petition had been withdrawn and the application for review was filed. That, the Secretary had fixed the hearing to decide the application for grant of interim relief but, instead, had heard the main revision application and rejected it vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2009, therefore, the said order may be quashed and the Secretary (Appeals) may be directed to reconsider the revision application of the petitioners on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. That even the order of the Collector dated 17.06.2008 cannot be sustained, as it has been passed without hearing the petitioners, and the application for regrant/ requisition of the land occupied by the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground of delay. The principles of natural justice have been violated, therefore, the prayers made in the petition be granted.