- (1.)The matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval waives service of Rule for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 being formal party, no Rule is required to respondent No5.
(2.)By the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following prayers in para 16:-
"(A) A writ of cercioray of a writ in the nature of cercioray or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.1.2015 at Annexure-G passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.31 of 2013 and order dated 8/6/2009 passed by the Collector Bhavnagar in Appeal No.52 of 2008-2009 and order dated 18/5/2008 passed by the Dy. Collector Bhavnagar in Case No.362 of 2002;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, an interim injunction may kindly be granted staying further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 30.1.2015 at Annexure-G passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No.31 of 2013;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to remand the matter to the State Government to decide a fresh on merits and in accordance with the law after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

(D) ."

(3.)From the facts stated in the petition, it appears that deceased Haribhai Khimabhai was granted the land bearing Survey No.2/1 Paiki admeasuring 4 acres in village Velavadar (Bhal), Taluka and District Bhavnagar on permanent basis in the year 1971 for agricultural purpose. Since then, he had been in occupation and cultivating the land. However, in the year 2001/2002, when the petitioner, son of deceased Haribhai- original grantee, applied for removal of restrictions of new tenure, the Mamlatdar from the revenue record found that during the year 1984-85 to 1993-94, the land remained uncultivated for 3 years and reported to the Deputy Collector for initiation of inquiry for breach of the condition of grant. Upon such report of the Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector initiated the proceedings for breach of the condition of grant by registering Case No.362 of 2002. In such proceedings, the petitioner pointed out that on account of drought situation, since the land could not be cultivated, it could not be said that there was breach of the condition of grant. The Deputy Collector, however, passed order dated 18.5.2008 to vest the land to the State Government for breach of the condition of grant and to summarily evict the father of the petitioner. Such order of the Deputy Collector was challenged before the Collector by preferring Appeal No.52 of 2008 by the petitioner, which came to be dismissed by the Collector and the order of the Deputy Collector was confirmed. It is against this order, the petitioner preferred revision application before the Secretary, being Revision Application No.31 of 2013 under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code. The Secretary by impugned order rejected the revision application of the petitioner on the ground of limitation as also on merits.