VALLABHBHAI RAMBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. N.D. Buch for Nanavaty Advocates for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Pujara as well as Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGPs appearing for respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final judgment and order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13443 of 2009 and order dated 18.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No. 13444 to 13446 of 2009, the appellants have preferred the present appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) MR . Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has strongly argued that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by ignoring the fact that none of the authorities have assigned germane, cogent and convincing reasons for initiating suo motu revisional proceedings after a long period of more than two decades. He contended that the mutation entries of the year 1987 came to be taken into suo motu revision in the year 2008 and the said delayed initiation of the proceedings has not been properly explained by the authorities.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides it is borne out that similar issue was decided by this Court in the case of Bhanji Devshibhai Luhar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in : 2011 (2) GLR 1676. In that case, the transaction was under the Ordinance, like the present case, and though it was found that the transaction was in violation of the very same Ordinance, the authority took action after a long delay of seventeen years. From the said decision, Paras 21 & 23 are reproduced hereunder: -