KOLI PARSHOTTAMBHAI NARSINHBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 30/5/2012 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;

(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 the writ applicants without obtaining the permission from the competent authority. Learned advocate Mr. Abhichandani also submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1-SSRD is contrary to the record and facts. He submits that originally the land in question was in the name of late Raja Bechar which was of old tenure, and therefore, there is no question of taking permission from the respondents-authorities to purchase the land, and as such, there is no breach of condition or illegality being committed by the writ applicants. Learned advocate Mr. Abhichandani also submits that the land was purchased by the writ applicants by a registered sale deed in the year 1990, and the suo motu proceedings were initiated by the respondent No.3-Assistant Collector in the year 2003, and as such, there is an inordinate delay of almost 11 years in initiating the suo motu proceedings, which is quite huge and unexplained, and it is a settled legal position that suo motu action taken after reasonable period of time is null and void.