JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals, they are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. Letters Patent Appeal No.1624/2006 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.853/1991 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application preferred by the appellant herein – original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “original petitioner”) and has confirmed the order dated 05.01.1991 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), in Revision Application No.SRD/JMN/JNR/17/90 by which the Secretary (Appeals) quashed and set aside the decision dated 16.04.1986 of the local authority of Dwarka Nagar Panchayat as well as the order dated July 1986 of the Collector, Jamnagar disposing of the land belonging to local authority – Dwarka Nagar Panchayat, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal No.1624/2006. Letters Patent Appeal No.420/2015 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order 06.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.9251/2003 and 3409/2003 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Applications preferred by the appellants herein – original petitioners and has confirmed the order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat in Revision Application Nos.19/1990 and 18/1990, by which the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat set aside the Resolution No.11 dated 16.04.1986 passed by the local authority – Dwarka Nagar Panchayat as well as the order dated 24.02.2003 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat disposing of the land belonging to local authority – Dwarka Nagar Panchayat, the original petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal Nos.420/2015 and 462/2015. 3. At the outset it is required to be noted that while dismissing the present Special Civil Application Nos.9251/2003 and 3409/2003, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.853/1991 which is the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No.1624/2006. 3. At the outset it is required to be noted that while dismissing the present Special Civil Application Nos.9251/2003 and 3409/2003, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.853/1991 which is the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No.1624/2006. Under the circumstances, Letters Patent Appeal No.1624/2006 is treated as lead matter and therefore, for the sake of convenience the facts in Letters Patent Appeal No.1624/2006 arising out of the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application No.853/1991 are narrated which in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That the dispute is with respect to the land original belonging to Dwarka Nagar Panchayat (local authority) admeasuring 1002.19 sq. meter situated in the prime location and in the heart of the town Dwarka – famous religious place in the State of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as “land in question”). That the land in question which was old Gamtal land at the relevant time was owned by Dwarka Nagar Panchayat (local authority). 3.2 That by an application dated 23.03.1986, one Shri Upendra V. Somani – partner of Guru Prerana Enterprises, made application before the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat requesting for grant of plot on land in question adjoining the firm’s existing hotel viz. Guru Prerana Hotel. That pursuant to the said application, Dwarka Nagar Panchayat in its general meeting on 16.04.1986, by Resolution No.11(4) gave its unanimous approval for the grant of land in favour of the applicant, and forwarded the same to the Deputy Collector and the Collector, Jamnagar for taking necessary action thereof. 3.3 It appears that in the meantime, on 08.07.1986, the original partnership firm was dissolved and Guru Prerana Hotel appears to have been taken over by the original petitioner, a proprietary firm of one Shri Mansukh Barai. 3.4 That by an order dated 11.07.1986, the Collector, Jamnagar approved the aforesaid decision of the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat and fixed the market value of land in question at the rate of Rs.75 per sq. meter and determined the total market price at Rs.75,187.50 paise. That pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner paid the aforesaid amount and entered into an agreement with the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat on 14.08.1986, which was duly registered on 21.08.1986 before the Sub-Registrar, Kalyanpur, District Jamnagar. meter and determined the total market price at Rs.75,187.50 paise. That pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner paid the aforesaid amount and entered into an agreement with the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat on 14.08.1986, which was duly registered on 21.08.1986 before the Sub-Registrar, Kalyanpur, District Jamnagar. 3.5 That the aforesaid order of the Collector was challenged by the original respondent No.1 before this Court by way of Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.1429/1987. The said petition was in the nature of PIL, wherein the respondent No.1 also challenged the similar orders of the then Incharge Collector, approving the grant of the land alleged to be in contravention of the Government Resolutions. That the said petition came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 10.08.1987 mainly on the ground that the said petition cannot be said to be a PIL as there are disputed questions of facts involved in the petition. That the original respondent No.1 carried the matter further by way of appeal before the Division Bench being Letters Patent Appeal No.286/1987. The said Letters Patent Appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 03.04.1989. That thereafter, after dismissal of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, the original respondent No.1 –respondent No.4 herein approached the State Government against the order of the Collector by way of an appeal. However, there being no provision of appeal against the order of Collector passed under section 98 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), the same was registered as Revision Application under the provisions of Section 305 of the Act, and numbered as Revision Application No.F.SRD/JMN/JNR/17/90. That by order dated 05.01.1991 (which was impugned in the main petition), the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat allowed the aforesaid revision application and set aside the order dated 11.07.1986 passed by the Collector, Jamnagar. 3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.01.1991 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.17/1990, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.853/1991 before this Court. During the course of the hearing the dispute arose whether the land in question was part of “Ravla Talav”. 3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.01.1991 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No.17/1990, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.853/1991 before this Court. During the course of the hearing the dispute arose whether the land in question was part of “Ravla Talav”. Therefore, by an interim order dated 14.06.2001, this Court directed the Collector, Jamnagar and the Dwarka Nagar Panchayat to place on record the proceedings of all the details about the area known as “Ravla Talav”, the allotment if any, of any portion of the land in question to any party, the orders, if any, for that purpose and the details of construction put up on such land / drench alongwith figures of such construction, and whether any permission of any authority was obtained for putting up such construction. It appears that in compliance with the aforesaid directions, affidavits of both the authorities were filed by 30.06.2001. 3.7 That thereafter by judgment and order dated 20.02.2002, the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.853/1991 came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 05.01.1991 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat. It appears that thereafter the respondent No.4 herein – original respondent No.1 moved the review application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.801/2002, which came to be allowed by an order dated 02.08.2002 and order dated 20.02.2002 allowing the said Special Civil Application came to be recalled and Special Civil Application No.853/1991 was ordered to be restored to file. That is how the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.853/1991 was placed for final hearing before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge heard the petition finally. 3.8 It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the order passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat passed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 305 of the Act, in respect of the order passed by the Collector as competent Authority under Section 98 of the Act, was null and void for want of inherent jurisdiction. It was vehemently submitted that the order of Collector, which was set aside in the revision, was not an order passed by any Officer of the Panchayat, but was passed by competent Authority under section 98(1) of the Act, and as such, would not be the subject matter of the revision under section 305 of the Act. It was contended that section 305 of the Act envisages revision only against the order passed by the Officers of the Panchayat, that the Collector not being an Officer of the Panchayat, the revision against the order of Collector was incompetent. It was further submitted that the State Government also does not have any powers of revision against the order of Collector passed under Section 98(1) of the Act, under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”), inasmuch as the said order was not an order under the provisions of the Code. 3.9 It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the revision application was filed after a delay of more than 3 years, which could not be said a reasonable time and that, therefore the revisional Authority had manifestly erred in holding that the limitation is not applicable to the facts of the present case, and that, such an order can be quashed at any time. It was further submitted that the revision application was barred by limitation and ought to have been rejected on that ground alone. 3.10 The order passed by the revisional Authority was also challenged on merits. It was also specifically denied that the land/plot in question was part of the lake. It was further submitted that the subject land was a piece of land adjoining the petitioner’s existing hotel and therefore, Nagar Panchayat while passing the resolution to grant the said land to the petitioner has specifically observed that same is being granted as adjoining land. It was further submitted that subject to the provisions of section 98 of the Act, it was within the powers of the Nagar Panchayat to grant adjoining land to the petitioner. It was further submitted that subject to the provisions of section 98 of the Act, it was within the powers of the Nagar Panchayat to grant adjoining land to the petitioner. It was submitted that while granting the approval, the Collector who was the competent Authority had considered all relevant aspects and thereafter granted approval for the sale of the subject land in favour of the petitioner was just legal and proper and therefore, the revisional Authority was not justified in interfering with the same. 3.11 The petition was opposed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original applicant – original respondent No.1 in the petition. It was vehemently submitted that it was a systematic attempt on the part of the petitioner and others to grab the public land owned by the Panchayat. It was further submitted that infact the land in question was forming part of “Ravla Talav” (lake). It was further submitted that the manner in which the Nagar Panchayat disposed of the public property and which came to be approved by the Collector that too without holding any public auction etc., the same has been rightly set aside by the revisional Authority. It was submitted that it was the policy of the State Government to dispose of the surplus land by way of public auction only, however in flagrant disregard of the aforesaid policy, the valuable lands have been straightway sold to the original petitioner without putting up the same for auction. It was further submitted that the Panchayat cannot give land for private purpose without public auction. It was further submitted that excess land if any, held by the Panchayat has to be used for a public purpose and it cannot be granted to an individual for setting up his private business. It was further submitted that as such there was no delay in approaching the State Government/revisional Authority. It was further submitted that after dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal confirming the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition on the ground that the petition cannot be said to be a PIL and that there are disputed questions of fact, immediately thereafter the original respondent No.1 approached the State Government. Alternatively it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case solely on the ground of delay if any, the illegal decision / order cannot be confirmed. Alternatively it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case solely on the ground of delay if any, the illegal decision / order cannot be confirmed. 3.12 The petition was also opposed by the State Government. An affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of the State Government pointing out that as per the G.R. dated 17.09.1966 while disposing of the public lands, it was necessary to follow the procedure laid down therein and sell the same by way of public auction. It was further submitted that while disposing of the public lands, auction was a must with a view to ensure that public exchequer obtains the maximum price. It was further contended that disposal of the lands to a private party without auction was in violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as similarly situated persons were deprived of their right to bid for the said lands. It was submitted that therefore the entire exercise was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted on behalf of the State that in present case as the land was disposed of by the Panchayat, approved by the Collector illegally and without holding any public auction which was not in the larger public interest, the same has been rightly set aside by the Secretary (Appeals) in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 3.13 That after considering submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for respective parties, by impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Application by observing that the lands which were reserved for public purpose of constructing the pilgrim sheds belonging to Dwarka Nagar Panchayat (local authority) has been disposed of illegally in favour of a private person. While dismissing the petition the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that the lands which admittedly were reserved for public purpose have been sold to the petitioner merely on the basis of the application made by the firm which was dissolved before the actual transaction was effected and that no explanation is coming forth as to why the Nagar Panchayat thought it fit to dispose of public land to a private party for commercial purposes without holding an auction to fix the best possible price. The learned Single Judge has also observed that considering the location of the land, it appears to be a prime land. The learned Single Judge has specifically observed that subject land For ms part of the lands which have been vested in the Panchayat under the G.R. dated 17.09.1966 and the disposal of the plots in favour of private person was in breach of the G.R. dated 17.09.1966, which provided that the plots shall be disposed of by way of public auction only and it further provided that while disposing of the plots, the Panchayat shall follow the procedure provided for disposal of the Government lands as well as the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, Rules and prevailing orders in that regard. That thereafter relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Public School and others v. HUDA and others reported in (1996)5 SCC 510 and in the case of State of Kerala and others v. M.Bhaskaran Pillai and another reported in (1997)5 SCC 432 and decision of this Court in the case of Kanchanbhai Kanbhai Tadvi vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Vadodara reported in 2002(1) GLH 790 , the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said Special Civil Application and has confirmed the order passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Collector approving the resolution of the Panchayat disposing of the land in favour of the petitioner. 3.14 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4.0 Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respective appellants herein – original petitioners. He has as such reiterated what was submitted before the learned Single Judge. Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that the Revisional Authority in exercise of powers of the revision under Section 305 of the Act had no jurisdiction, in respect of the order passed by the Collector as competent Authority under section 98 of the Act. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that the order dated 11.07.1986 passed by the Collector which was the subject matter before the Revisional Authority, was passed by competent Authority under Section 98(1) of the Act and therefore as such, could not be subject matter of the revision under section 305 of the Act. 4.1 It is further submitted by Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that the revision application under section 305 of the Act may be maintainable only against the order passed by the officers of the Panchayat and that the Collector not being an Officer of the Panchayat, the revision against the order of Collector was incompetent. It is further submitted that against the order passed by the Collector even the revision under section 211 of the Code was not maintainable. It is further submitted by Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that even otherwise the revision application before the Revisional Authority was preferred after unreasonable time i.e. in the present case after a period of approximately 3 years. It is submitted that therefore as such the Revisional Authority ought not to have entertained the revision application which was filed after reasonable time. 4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that even otherwise and on merits also the learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the petitions. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that as such before granting the lands in question / plots in question, the procedure as required to be followed was followed. It is submitted that the Panchayat first passed the resolution on the application submitted by the original petitioners and took a conscious decision to sell the lands in favour of the original petitioners on payment of market price and on approval by the Collector. It is submitted that thereafter the resolution passed by the Panchayat came to be approved by the Collector and the market price was determined and thereafter and only on payment of the market price determined, the land in question were sold in favour of the original petitioners. It is submitted that even thereafter the original petitioners made investment and incurred expenditure. It is submitted that even thereafter the original petitioners made investment and incurred expenditure. It is submitted that as such the lands in question were just adjacent to the properties of the original petitioners and therefore, they applied for the same. 4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that as such the original applicant who preferred the revision application had no locus as he himself was a party to the resolution [he might have opposed at the relevant time]. 4.4 It is further submitted by Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners that as such there was no material on record to show that the lands in question were part of “Ravla Talav” (lake). It is submitted that the Panchayat was owner of the lands in question which was part of the original Gamtal land, the Panchayat had competence to dispose of the lands. It is submitted that in each and every case the properties / lands of the Panchayat is not required to be disposed of by public auction only. It is submitted that therefore when the lands have been sold in favour of the original petitioners after determining the market price by the competent authority and thereafter on payment of the market price by the original petitioners, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the petitions. 4.5 Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners has vehemently submitted that even on the ground of res judicata also the revision application was not maintainable, in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition. He has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission and Another vs. Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur and Others reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 220. No other submissions have been made. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Letters Patent Appeals. 5.0 All these Letters Patent Appeals are opposed by Shri Harshil Shukla, learned AGP appearing for the State and Shri P.J. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 (original applicant). No other submissions have been made. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Letters Patent Appeals. 5.0 All these Letters Patent Appeals are opposed by Shri Harshil Shukla, learned AGP appearing for the State and Shri P.J. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 (original applicant). 5.1 Shri Shukla, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State has heavily relied upon the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Secretary. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the manner in which valuable lands allotted to the Panchayat have been disposed of by the Panchayat and it is found that the same was in breach of the Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966, the Revisional Authority has rightly exercised the revisional jurisdiction and has rightly quashed and set aside the order passed by the Collector approving the resolution of the Panchayat disposing of the lands in favour of the original petitioners. It is vehemently submitted that as such apart from the fact that whether the disputed lands in question were part of “Ravla Talav” or lake or not, infact they were reserved for public purpose for pilgrims shed. It is submitted that as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order, the Panchayat did not furnish the correct details of the lands in question. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that the Panchayat has not come with the clean hands and has note stated and disclosed the true facts. 5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shukla, learned AGP appearing for the State as well as Shri P.J. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.4 that infact the Collector had no authority to grant the sanction and only the District Development Officer was the competent authority to accord the approval. 6.1 Shri P.J. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 – revisionist has further submitted that as such there was no delay in preferring the revision application before the Revisional Authority as sought to be contended on behalf of the original petitioners, much less delay of 3 years in preferring the revision application. 6.1 Shri P.J. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 – revisionist has further submitted that as such there was no delay in preferring the revision application before the Revisional Authority as sought to be contended on behalf of the original petitioners, much less delay of 3 years in preferring the revision application. It is submitted that earlier the original revisionist approached this Court by filing a Special Civil Application which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of disputed questions of fact as well as on the ground that the petition cannot be said to be a Public Interest Litigation. It is submitted that against the order passed by the learned Single Judge the matter was carried before the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal which came to be dismissed on 03.04.1989 and immediately thereafter in the month of July 1989, the revision application before the learned Special Secretary (Appeals) was filed. It is submitted that therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay of 3 years in preferring the revision application. 6.2 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 – revisionist that as such it s a glaring example of land grabbing by the original petitioners in connivance with the members of the Panchayat. It is submitted that systematically and in part the original petitioners encroached upon the land; grabbed the lands in question situated in the prime location of a very important religious place i.e. Dwarka and thereafter purchased the lands. 6.3 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 – revisionist that even on the day on which the Collector granted the approval of the resolution of the Panchayat i.e. on 11.07.1986, the original applicant – partnership firm was already dissolved. It is submitted that therefore the day on which the resolution of the Panchayat was approved, the original applicant – partnership firm was not in existence. It is submitted that therefore without verifying the factual aspect, the Collector approved the resolution of the Panchayat which as such was absolutely contrary to the Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966. It is submitted that therefore the day on which the resolution of the Panchayat was approved, the original applicant – partnership firm was not in existence. It is submitted that therefore without verifying the factual aspect, the Collector approved the resolution of the Panchayat which as such was absolutely contrary to the Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966. It is submitted that when the lands in question were allotted / allocated to the Panchayat, there were specific conditions that the same could not be sold without the prior permission and/or without holding public auction. It is vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the petitions and confirmed the orders passed by the revisional authorities. 6.4 Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 herein has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shailesh R. Shah vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002(3) GLR 2295 in support of his submission that as the lands in question were part of “Ravla Talav” (lake), it could not have been sold / disposed of and that too for commercial purpose. 7.0 Shri Shukla, learned AGP appearing for the State as well as Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.4 have also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2012)3 SCC 1 . 7.1 Heard learned advocate appearing for respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that it is a glaring example of misuse of powers by the elected body of the Panchayat in disposing of the public property and the lands belonging to the Panchayat which as such was required to be used for public purpose. It is required to be noted that the lands in question were as such very valuable lands and situated in the prime location of very famous religious place / town – Dwarka. As observed by the learned Single Judge even the lands in question were as such reserved for public purpose i.e. pilgrims shed, however the same were disposed of / sold in favour of the petitioners without holding any public auction and in breach of the Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966. As observed by the learned Single Judge even the lands in question were as such reserved for public purpose i.e. pilgrims shed, however the same were disposed of / sold in favour of the petitioners without holding any public auction and in breach of the Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966. It is required to be noted that the lands in question were vested in the Panchayat pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966 and the conditions contained therein stated that the lands cannot be disposed of / sold without holding any public auction and without prior approval of the competent authority. Despite the above the Panchayat passed the resolutions disposing of / selling the lands in question to the original petitioners which came to be approved by the Collector. The approval accorded by the Collector vide order dated 11.07.1986 has been set aside by the State Government in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and by impugned judgment and orders the learned Single Judge has confirmed the decisions of the Revisional Authority. 7.2 Now, the contention on behalf of the original petitioners that the revision application was required to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata, in view of the dismissal of earlier petition by the learned Single Judge is concerned, the same has no substance. On considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the earlier petition which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, it appears that the learned Single Judge did not dismiss the petition on merits and did not confirm the resolution passed by the Panchayat on merits. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the same cannot be said to be a Public Interest Litigation and there are disputed question of fact. Under the circumstances, there was no bar of res judicata as sought to be contended on behalf of the original petitioners. 7.3 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the original petitioners that as there was a delay of 3 years in preferring the revision application and therefore, Revisional Authority ought not to have entertained the revision application which was after unreasonable period / time is concerned, the same also has no substance. It is required to be noted that Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on 03.04.1989 and the revision application was preferred in the month of July 1989. It is required to be noted that Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on 03.04.1989 and the revision application was preferred in the month of July 1989. Therefore, as such it cannot be said that there was a delay of 3 years in preferring the revision application. 7.4 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the original petitioners that against the sanction accorded by the Collector which was in exercise of powers under section 98 of the Act, revision application under section 305 of the Act was not maintainable is concerned, the learned Single Judge as such has considered the aforesaid in detail in paras 29 to 33. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge with respect to exercise of powers by the revisional authority considering the order passed by the Collector granting sanction / approval of the resolution passed by the Panchayat. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that any order passed by the Collector / subordinate officers was amenable to the revision under section 211 of the Code. In any case the revisional authority has not committed any error in entertaining the revision application challenging the order passed by the Collector dated 11.07.1986 granting approval / sanction to the resolution passed by the Panchayat. 7.5 Now, so far as the main question / issue with respect to disposal of the lands in question by the Panchayat without holding public auction is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the lands in question were reserved for a public purpose. The lands in question came to be sold to the petitioners merely on the basis of the application made by the firm which was dissolved before the actual transaction was effected. As observed hereinabove the lands in question were reserved for constructing pilgrims shed thereon. It is also required to be noted that the lands in question was given to the Nagar Panchayat by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966 and accordingly the possession was taken by the Panchayat. The lands in question vested in the Panchayat pursuant to the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966 and that too on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said Government Resolution. Therefore, disposal of the subject lands were governed by the said Government Resolution. The lands in question vested in the Panchayat pursuant to the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966 and that too on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said Government Resolution. Therefore, disposal of the subject lands were governed by the said Government Resolution. Under the said Government Resolution, it has been provided that the land shall be disposed of by way of public auction. It also further provided that while disposing of the land, the Panchayat shall follow the procedure provided for disposal of the Government lands as well as the provisions of the Code, Rules and prevailing orders in that regard. Therefore, when the lands in question were sold without holding any public auction and without following any procedure as required under the Government Resolution, as such the Nagar Panchayat was not empowered to dispose of the same. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Public School (Supra) as well as M. Bhaskaran Pillai (Supra) and the decision of this Court in the case of Kanchanbhai Kanbhai Tadvi Tadvi (Supra) has rightly dismissed the petitions. At this stage the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. (Supra) is required to be referred to and considered. In the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point has observed and held in paras 70 and 71 as under: 70. In Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. (2011) 5 SCC 29 , this Court examined the legality of the action taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to allot 20 acres land to an institute established in the name of Kushabhau Thakre on the basis of an application made by the Trust. One of the grounds on which the appellant challenged the allotment of land was that the State Government had not adopted any rational method consistent with the doctrine of equality. The High Court negatived the appellant's challenge. One of the grounds on which the appellant challenged the allotment of land was that the State Government had not adopted any rational method consistent with the doctrine of equality. The High Court negatived the appellant's challenge. Before this Court, learned senior counsel appearing for the State relied upon the judgments in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration (2001)3 SCC 635 , State of U.P. v. Choudhary Rambeer Singh (2008) 5 SCC 550 , State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash (2005)13 SCC 495 and Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies (2009) 6 SCC 171 and argued that the Court cannot exercise the power of judicial review to nullify the policy framed by the State Government to allot Nazul land without advertisement. This Court rejected the argument, referred to the judgments in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)3 SCC 489 , S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427 , Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K (1980)4 SCC 1 , Common Cause v. Union of India (supra), Shrilekha Vidyarthy v. State of U.P. (1991)1 SCC 212 , LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 , New India Public School v. HUDA (1996) 5 SCC 510 and held: "What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a nondiscriminatory and nonarbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State." 71. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State." 71. In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1987)2 SCC 295 , the Court referred to some of the precedents and laid down the following propositions: "State owned or public owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism." 7.7 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the lands which were as such required to be used for public purpose i.e. for constructing pilgrims shed have been disposed of in favour of the original petitioners without holding any public auction and/or contrary to the Government Resolution dated 17.09.1966 and that too on the application submitted by the original petitioners and for commercial use, it cannot be said that learned Single Judge has committed any error in dismissing the petitions. As such we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7.8 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the original petitioners that they have incurred the expenditure after the lands in question were sold in their favour is concerned, when a pointed question was asked to the learned Counsel appearing for the original petitioners that is there any construction, he has fairly conceded that as such there is no further construction on the lands in question. 7.9 At this stage it is required to be noted that considering the fact that original petitioners are in possession of the lands in question since long, we suggested that let the public auction be held and the lands in question be disposed of by holding the public auction, however the original petitioners may be given first priority and to match with the highest offer, however the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners has refused to accept the said offer. 8.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these Letters Patent Appeals fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, granted. No costs.