JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 - SSRD in Revision Application No.36 of 2006, the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 - Collector in Appeal No.33/2005 and the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the respondent No.3 - Deputy Collector, whereby the land in question allotted to the petitioner was directed to be vested in Government in the proceedings initiated under Section 79A of the Bombay Land Revenue Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). 2. The chronology of events, as emerging from the record, is that the petitioner was granted the land bearing Survey No.1265 paiki ad-measuring 1400 sq. mtr., situated at Village Bhachaou, Taluka Bhuj, District Kutch for industrial purpose for setting up Ginning factory by the Collector, vide the order dated 20.9.1982 (Annexure-A), subject to the conditions mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had started industrial activity relating to the Ginning business by constructing a shed over the said land, however, since the concerned revenue authority had failed to issue sanad in favour of the petitioner, the said land could not be mutated in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner vide the Application dated 15.3.1989 had requested the concerned Nagarpanchayat to issue necessary development permission for the construction of industrial shed, however, the same was denied on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner, therefore, could not put up the construction within the stipulated time, as per the conditions mentioned in the order dated 20.9.1982. It appears that the respondent No.2 District Collector, therefore, issued the notice on 8.1.1991 (Annexure-B), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the land should not vest in the Government, the petitioner having committed the breach of Condition No.4 of the allotment order dated 20.9.1982. The petitioner had filed reply in response to the said show-cause notice, however, the respondent No.2 vide the order dated 20.6.1991 (Annexure-E) declared that the petitioner had committed breach of Condition No.4 of the original allotment and, therefore, directed to vest the land in question in the State Government. The petitioner had filed reply in response to the said show-cause notice, however, the respondent No.2 vide the order dated 20.6.1991 (Annexure-E) declared that the petitioner had committed breach of Condition No.4 of the original allotment and, therefore, directed to vest the land in question in the State Government. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the revision application before the respondent No.1 under Section 211 of the said Act, who vide the order dated 4.7.1991 set aside the order dated 20.6.1991 passed by the respondent No.2 and remanded the case for deciding afresh. After the remand, the respondent No.2 vide the order dated 27.1.1993 (Annexure-G) directed that the petitioner shall complete the construction on the land in question within six months after the issuance of sanad. According to the petitioner, he had time and again made representation to the Mamlatdar for issuance of sanad, however, he was not issued the same. The petitioner, thereafter applied for change of use of the land from industrial to commercial, to the District Collector on 25.9.1996, as the petitioner was desirous of manufacturing the cement blocks and pipes, however, the said application also remained pending without any decision. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 2001, the entire Kutch was hit by massive earthquake and the petitioner suffered heavy loss in the business. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 Mamlatdar with ulterior motive issued the notice on 22.1.2002 (Annexure-L), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the land should not vest in the Government, the petitioner having committed the breach of Condition No.4 of the allotment order. The petitioner had responded to the said notice giving reply on 23.1.2002 contending, inter alia, that the respondent No.4 did not have the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. At the same time, the petitioner also challenged the said notice by filing Special Civil Application No.1297 of 2002 before this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of vide the order dated 17.10.2003 on the statement made on behalf of the respondent Authorities that the orders would be passed only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At the same time, the petitioner also challenged the said notice by filing Special Civil Application No.1297 of 2002 before this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of vide the order dated 17.10.2003 on the statement made on behalf of the respondent Authorities that the orders would be passed only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It appears that thereafter the respondent No.4 Mamlatdar communicated to the respondent No.2 Collector vide the communication dated 28.3.2004 (Annexure-O) stating, inter alia, that the petitioner had committed breach of the conditions of the allotment order by not completing the construction within the prescribed time limit. The respondent No.2, therefore, directed the respondent No.3 Deputy Collector to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 79A of the Revenue Code. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner on 7.7.2004 (Annexure-Q) and also directed the petitioner to remain present for hearing on 19.7.2004. In the meantime, on 17.7.2004 the Circle Officer, Bhachaou carried out one panchnama in respect of the land in question as per Annexure-R. The respondent No.3 Deputy Collector relying upon the said panchnama and after taking into consideration the documentary evidence vide order dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure-S), held that the petitioner had committed breach of condition Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5 of the allotment order dated 20.9.1982, and therefore, the said land was liable to be vested in the Government. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the appeal being No.33/2005 before the respondent No.2 District Collector, who vide order dated 10.8.2006 (Annexure-T) dismissed the said appeal. The aggrieved petitioner preferred revision application before the respondent No.1 under Section 211 of the Revenue Code, which revision application also came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 20.6.2014 (Annexure-X). Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. The petition has been resisted by the respondent No.3 by filing reply contending, inter alia, that the petitioner had committed breach of the conditions mentioned in the allotment order dated 20.9.1982 by not putting up the construction within the stipulated time limit and not using the said land for Ginning business for which it was allotted. It was also contended that the petitioner had never bothered to ask for the sanad and had started using the land for manufacturing cement blocks and pipes, instead of using the same for Ginning industry. It was also contended that the petitioner had never bothered to ask for the sanad and had started using the land for manufacturing cement blocks and pipes, instead of using the same for Ginning industry. It was also contended that the petitioner had constructed the cabins and given them to the vegetable vendors for commercial purpose, without any permission from the Collector. Under the circumstances, the Deputy Collector had rightly initiated the proceedings under Section 79A of the Revenue Code, which action has been confirmed by the Collector and the respondent No.1 also. 5. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Marshall appearing with Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the Mamlatdar had no powers to initiate the action under Section 79A of the Revenue Code by issuing the show-cause notice, when the Collector vide order dated 27.3.1993 had held that the petitioner could complete the construction within six months of the issuance of the sanad. According to Mr. Marshall, the concerned authority did not issue the sanad and, therefore, the petitioner could not put up construction of Ginning factory. He further submitted that the respondent No.3 Deputy Collector had relied upon the panchnama drawn by the Circle Officer on 17.3.2004 prepared at 5.15 a.m., to hold that the petitioner had leased out the land to the vegetable vendors. Mr. Marshall vehemently urged that the petitioner was not put to any notice before preparing for such panchnama and that too, at such an early hours in the morning, and that the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 have also mechanically confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector directing to vest the said land in Government. Mr. Marshall has also alternatively submitted that without prejudice to the contentions raised in the petition, the respondent authorities be directed to give benefit of the Circular dated 6.6.2003 (Annexure-Y) or any other Circular as may be applicable, to the petitioner. 6. However, the learned AGP Mr. Patel for the respondent authorities submitted that the petitioner had not used the land for the purpose for which it was granted and had committed breach of the conditions as mentioned in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. He submitted that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three authorities, this Court should not interfere with the same, exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. He submitted that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three authorities, this Court should not interfere with the same, exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No.3 Deputy Collector had passed the impugned order on 29.11.2004 holding that the petitioner had committed breach of the condition Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 of the allotment order dated 20.9.1982, mainly relying upon the panchnama prepared by the Circle Officer at 5.15 a.m., on 17.7.2004. It was stated in the said panchnama that there were ten shops fully constructed on the said land, for which the vegetable vendors were carrying on their businesses in the said shops. It is not disputed that the said panchnama was carried out by the Circle Officer in the early morning hours and without any notice to the petitioner. It is surprising that the Circle Officer at such early hours went to the site and prepared panchnama and that too without giving any notice to the petitioner. Such panchnama prepared in absence and information of the petitioner could not have been relied upon by the respondent No.3 to hold that the petitioner had committed breach of the Condition Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. Hence, the said order of the respondent No.3, based on the material collected in absence of the petitioner, being violative of the principles of natural justice, deserves to be quashed and set aside on that ground alone. 8. It is also not disputed that initially the show cause notice was issued by the Mamlatdar on 22.1.2002 for the alleged breach of Condition No.4 only. The petitioner was not served with any other notice with regard to the alleged breach of other conditions of the allotment order. It is for the first time, the breach of other Conditions i.e. Condition Nos.1, 2 and 5, was alleged in the impugned order by the respondent No.3. Hence, the petitioner had no opportunity to deal with the allegations made in respect of the breach of other conditions. The said order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the respondent No.3 being ex-facie violative of the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the petitioner had no opportunity to deal with the allegations made in respect of the breach of other conditions. The said order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the respondent No.3 being ex-facie violative of the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed and set aside. The said order having been confirmed by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 vide the order dated 10.8.2006 and 20.6.2014 respectively, they also deserve to be quashed and set aside without examine the merits of the other issues. 9. In that view of the matter the impugned order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the respondent No.1, the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the respondent No.3 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 the Collector, for deciding the case of the petitioner afresh after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and deciding the same on merits and in accordance with law. 10. It is also clarified that it will be open for the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for granting benefit of the Circular dated 6.6.2003 (Annexure-Y) or any other Circular, as may be applicable to the case of the petitioner. 11. The petition stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition allowed.