AKIL KURESHI, J. - (1.)THIS appeal filed by the State Government is directed against learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No. 10708/2000. Short facts are as follows :
(2.)WITH respect to agricultural land bearing survey no.42 admeasuring 12 acres and 14 gunthas of village Piprod, erstwhile owner had not repaid the dues of Land Development Bank, Ahmedabad. Said land was therefore, put in auction conducted by the Special Recovery Officer by issuance of notification dated 1.4.1985. Respondents had participated in the said auction proceedings held on 3.5.1985. They offered the highest price of Rs. 25,501/- for the land in question. Their offer was accepted. They paid the purchase price.
By order dated 24.6.1985, Special Recovery Officer, Land Development Bank confirmed the sale in favour of the respondents herein. Collector, Bharuch however, finding that the purchasers not being agriculturists, sale of the land in their favour was opposed to Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act(?the tenancy Act? for short), after hearing the purchasers by an order dated 12.4.1989 set aside order dated 24.6.1985 thereby set aside auction sale.

Purchasers i.e. the present respondents first preferred revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal challenging order of the Collector. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal however, by its decision dated 10.1.1996 returned the application for presentation before the proper authority finding that revision application before the Tribunal was not maintainable. Thereupon the purchasers approached the State Government by filing revision application against the order of the Collector. By order dated 17.3.2000, such revision application was dismissed and order of the Collector dated 12.4.1989 was confirmed.

(3.)THESE orders were challenged by the original purchasers before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition which came to be allowed by impugned judgement dated 23.4.2009
Learned Single Judge observed that land was purchased at public auction. No objection at that time was raised. Nearly four years thereafter, Collector exercised powers which was beyond reasonable time. Referring to decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others reported in 10 GLR 992 and other similar decisions, learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the power was exercised beyond reasonable time. Orders passed by the revenue authorities were therefore, quashed. It is this judgement of the learned Single Judge which is challenged in the present appeal. We have heard learned AGP for the State. Though served no one appeared for the respondents.