JUDGMENT : 1. Both these petitions are filed against impugned order No.MVV/Hbakhap/Sue/Bhavan/13/2013 dated 31.8.2015 whereby NA Permission granted vide order bearing No.DP/LNP/Case/Reg.No.38/2008-09 dated 9.1.2009 in respect of the lands of Survey Nos.19 paiki 1 and 2, admeasuring 17402 sq.mtrs. is cancelled. 2. As per the facts of Special Civil Application No.15615 of 2015, the petitioner-respondent no.5 of Special Civil Application No.15564 of 2015 had purchased the land bearing survey No.19 admeasuring about 4 Acres and 8 Gunthas from heirs of Jaga Vasram, by a registered sale deed dated 9/8/2007 and 30/7/2007. That the public notice too was published in the Daily Saurastra Samachar a widely circulated daily of Bhavnagar in its 20/7/2007 edition. As no objection are received, the title of the sellers were deemed to be clear and than only the said sales deeds were executed. 2.1 The petitioner states that, thereafter, by application dated 22/11/2007 requested District Panchayat, Bhavnagar to convert the said land for non agricultural purpose. The District Development officer after following the prescribed procedure and after obtaining No Objection certificate from the Collector dated 6-11-2008 and various other No Objection certificate as such from the Taluka Development officer dated 16/5/2008, Village Virpur (Pali Gram Panchayat) dated 18/3/2008 District Health Officer, Bhavnagar dated 3/1/2008 R.O. Branch, District Collector Bhavnagar of dated 30/01/2008, Executive Engineer (R and B) Bhavnagar of dated 10/3/2008, District inspector of land record Bhavnagar of dated 13/02/20008, Mamlatdar Taluka Palitana Dated 12/02/2008, Executive Engineer District Panchayat, Bhavnagar dated 14/02/2008, and after such inquiry and proceedings the N/A. permission was granted on 09/01/2009 by District Development officer at Bhavnagar. N.A. Permission along with the map granted by DDO Bhavnagar. In all the land was sub plotted into 67 residential plots. It is submitted about 47 plots have been sold by the deponent and on many of the plots the houses has been constructed and again some plots have changed ownership. 2.2 So far as petitioners of Special Civil Application No.15564 of 2015 are concerned, they have filed present petition with a prayer to quash and set aside order No.MVV/Hbakhap/Sue/Bhavan/13/2013 dated 31.8.2015 filed before respondent No. 1 by the respondents Nos. 2, 3, in terms whereof the order, bearing No. DP/LNP Case/Reg. No. 38/2008-09, dated 09-01- 2009, passed by the respondent No. 2, granting N. A permission in respect of the lands of Survey Nos. 19 paiki 1 and 2 paiki, admeasuring 17402 sq. 2, 3, in terms whereof the order, bearing No. DP/LNP Case/Reg. No. 38/2008-09, dated 09-01- 2009, passed by the respondent No. 2, granting N. A permission in respect of the lands of Survey Nos. 19 paiki 1 and 2 paiki, admeasuring 17402 sq. mt, Mouje Virpur [Pali], Taluka Palitana, District Bhavnagar, has been cancelled, by allowing the proposal vide the letter, No. D.P./Rev/1/L.N.P./Vashi/509, dated 17-08-2013, as being exfacie illegal, improper, inequitable, unjust, arbitrary, ex facie erroneous, suffering from the vice of material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. 2.3 As per the facts of Special Civil Application No.15564 of 2015, it transpires that an order bearing No. DP/LNP Case/Reg. No. 38/2008-09, dated 09-01-2009, was passed by respondent No. 2, granting N. A. permission in respect of the lands of Survey Nos. 19 paiki 1 and 2 paiki, admeasuring 17402 sq. mt. in favour of Tulshibhai Padmabhai Italia-petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15615 of 2015, who had purchased two thirds of the said lands from the heirs of the original holder deceased Jaga Vashram of Village Virpur [Pali], Taluka-Palitana, District Bhavnagar, by two different sale deeds, bearing Reg. Nos. 1351, dated 30-07-2007 and No. 1386, dated 09-08-2007. 2.4 The petitioners have purchased different plots from the respondent No. 5 (petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15615 of 2015) or from his constituted attorney. The said sales have taken during the period ranging from January, 2009 to 2011. Thus, the same took place much prior to the initiation of the proceedings before the respondent No. 1 at the behest of the respondents Nos. 2, 3. All of the petitioners have community of interest and the cause of action is virtually identical or the same and therefore, they have filed the present petition in unison. Of course, the total fee for all the petitioners is paid. Those persons, whose plots are there in Diamond Park, but whose signature could not be procured on Vakalatnama, are presently joined as pro-forma respondents, so as to avoid any technical hitch. 2.5 It further transpires that the land admeasuring acres 2-10 gunthas i.e. 8701 sq. mt., out of the said lands of Mouje Virpur [Pali], Taluka Palitana, District Bhavnagar, came to be sold for the dues of the Land Development Bank, Palitana Branch, Palitana, to the tune of Rs. 2,500/-, being the principal sum and interest thereupon, the aggregate coming to Rs. mt., out of the said lands of Mouje Virpur [Pali], Taluka Palitana, District Bhavnagar, came to be sold for the dues of the Land Development Bank, Palitana Branch, Palitana, to the tune of Rs. 2,500/-, being the principal sum and interest thereupon, the aggregate coming to Rs. 4,500/-, by the Special Recovery Officer of the Land Development Bank, Palitana Branch, Palitana, and Sale Certificate was issued on 27-06-1984. While it is in favour of the Circle Inspector, Palitana, on behalf of the Mamlatdar, Palitana, it does not specify the boundaries of the land sold. The total land, out of which the land admeasuring acres 2-10 gunthas i.e. 8701 sq. mt. was so sold, is acres 6-18 gunthas, out of which the respondent No. 5 had purchased land admeasuring acres 4-12 gunthas, by two registered sale deeds. When the entire lands were not sold, it would have legally necessary to specify the boundaries of the lands sold for the said dues of the Land Development Bank, Palitana Branch, Palitana, so that the land sold could be identified at the site. it is gathered that some portion of the land is now being sought to be shown as the land sold, though the same does not have any legal backing. Besides, it would have legally necessary to hand over possession at the site physically, but it is not known as to what was done in reality. If the land sold were identified and if the possession at the site were physically handed over, the original land holders would not continued to be in actual physical possession at the site and their names would not have continued for the entire lands, without any modification whatsoever. The Village Form No. 6 shows Mutation Entries 43, 166, 244 and 245, which nowhere shows that any portion of the said land was sold for the dues of the Land Development Bank, Palitana tranch, Palitana, and hence, the same was subtracted from the holding. It is pointed out that Hissa Form No. 4 was got prepared as a prelude to framing of Town Planning Scheme. The same goes to show the occupiers of the land and the State Government of the Mamlatdar, Palitana, as occupier on its behalf. It is pointed out that Hissa Form No. 4 was got prepared as a prelude to framing of Town Planning Scheme. The same goes to show the occupiers of the land and the State Government of the Mamlatdar, Palitana, as occupier on its behalf. The entire sequence of the events do not indicate any infirmity in the title of the respondent No. 5 or his predecessor, Therefore, it can be said that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers without notice. 2.6 The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed Revision Application before the respondent No. 1, who has allowed the same and the order, bearing No. DP/LNP Case/Reg. No. 38/2008-09, dated 09-01-2009, passed by the respondent No. 1, granting N. A. permission in respect of the lands of Survey Nos. 19 paiki 1 and 2 paiki, admeasuring 17402 sq. mt. was cancelled. 2.7 As Revision Application filed by the respondents Nos. 2, 3, has been allowed and the order, bearing No. DP/LNP Case/Reg. No. 38/2008-09, dated 09-01-2009, passed by the respondent No. 1, granting N. A. permission in respect of the lands of Survey Nos. 19 paiki 1 and 2 paiki, admeasuring 17402 sq. mt, has been cancelled, the petitioners have challenged said order by preferring present petition. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. 4. Mr.B.J.Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.15564 of 2015 submitted that the impugned order, bearing No.MVV/Hbakhap/Sue/Bhavan/13/2013, dated 31-08-2015 passed as a result of Revision Application filed by the respondents Nos. 2, 3, has been allowed and the order, bearing No. DP/LNP Case/Reg. No. 38/2008-09, dated 09-01-2009, passed by the respondent No. 2, granting N. A. permission in respect of the lands of Survey Nos. 19 paiki 1 and 2 paiki, admeasuring 17402 sq. mt., has been cancelled, is ex-facie illegal, improper, inequitable, unjust, arbitrary, basically erroneous, suffering from the vice of material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and thereby causing very grave failure of justice and violative of the basic tenets of the Constitution of India, as also in glaring violation of the binding judicial decisions interpreting the provisions of The Gujarat Land Revenue Code, deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interests of justice. 4.1 He further submitted that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in [1997] 6 SCC 71, that when sale of land had taken place in December, 1972 and suo motu enquiry had started in September, 1973, the same was held to have been barred, as there was failure to exercise power within reasonable time. In the instant case, the order, bearing No. DP/LNP Case/Reg. No. 38/2008-09, dated 09-01-2009, was challenged in 2013 A. D. Therefore, the said decision is squarely applicable to the present lis. 4.2 He also submitted that the order, bearing No. DP/LNP Case/Reg. No.38/2008-09, dated 09-01-2009, was passed by the respondent No. 2, granting N. A. permission in respect of the lands of Survey Nos. 19 paiki and 2 paiki, admeasuring 17402 sq. mt. in favour of Tulshibhai Padmabhai Italia, who had purchased two thirds of the said lands from the heirs of the original holder deceased Jaga Vashram of Village Virpur [Pali], Taluka Palitana, District Bhavnagar, by two different sale deeds, bearing Reg. Nos. 1351, dated 30-07-2007 and No. 1386, dated 09-08-2007. He has pointed out that a public notice too was got published in the daily ‘Saurashtra Samachar’, a widely circulated daily of Bhavnagar, in its 20-07-2007 edition. As no objections were received, the title of the sellers were deemed to be clear and then only, the said sale deeds were executed. 4.3 He further submitted that it is admitted that land admeasuring acres 2-10 gunthas i.e. 8701 sq. mt. out of the said lands of Mouje Virpur [Pali], Taluka Palitana, District Bhavnagar, was sold for the principal dues of the Land Development Bank, Palitana Branch, Palitana, to the tune of Rs. 2,500/as on 27-06-1967 and interest thereupon, the aggregate being Rs. 4,500/the Special Recovery Officer of the Land Development Bank, Palitana Branch, Palitana, and Sale Certificate, however, no entry whatsoever was made in the revenue records, according to what is recited at page 5 of the order under challenge and therefore, the N. A. permission had been granted. 2,500/as on 27-06-1967 and interest thereupon, the aggregate being Rs. 4,500/the Special Recovery Officer of the Land Development Bank, Palitana Branch, Palitana, and Sale Certificate, however, no entry whatsoever was made in the revenue records, according to what is recited at page 5 of the order under challenge and therefore, the N. A. permission had been granted. When it is so, the moot question is as to whether the petitioners, who in good faith, buy plots of the lands, would be said to be bona fide purchasers without notice and nevertheless, would have to suffer as a result of failure or omission to get the necessary entry in the revenue records on the part of the authorities. Besides, what was sold was a parcel of land and not the entire holding of the lands, admeasuring acres 6-18 gunthas, but only land, admeasuring acres 2-10 gunthas was bought by the State Government, but without dividing the said lands by metes and bounds at the site and when the said sale certificate was issued, boundaries were not indicated in the said sale certificate and hence, no specific portion of the entire land was actually thus marked. He has further submitted that the law may not protect persons, who are not bona fide purchasers without notice, but it does protect bona fide purchasers without notice, as they have paid adequate consideration for purchasing the respective plots in question and many of them have spent their earnings and saving of their lives in buying the plots and constructing the houses, which are their homes and hearths and who have nowhere else to fall back upon, if the axe falls upon them. 4.4 He further submitted that the petitioners submit that the impugned order itself recites that when the land was purchased by the State Government, no entry whatsoever was made in the revenue records, according to what is recited at page 5 of the said order as a finding of fact and therefore, it cannot be said that neither the party, which purchased the said land was aware about the holding of the land in question by the State Government; even its senior officers did not have any inkling about the same. Were it so, no entry would have been made in favour of the first purchaser and no permission would have been granted for N.A. use. Were it so, no entry would have been made in favour of the first purchaser and no permission would have been granted for N.A. use. 4.5 In view of above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has prayed to allow present petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Vaghela appearing for the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.15615 of 2015 has adopted the arguments of learned advocate Mr.Trivedi and submitted that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner as there was no entry made regarding ownership of the Government in revenue record. He, therefore, prayed that petition may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Kanara has submitted that portion of land was already standing in the name of the Government. He has submitted that present petitioners and original purchaser cannot be treated as bona fide purchaser in view of affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.3 in Special Civil Application No.15615 of 2015. He has submitted that disputed portion of land of 2 Acres and 10 gunthas was purchased by the Government but it was never reflected in the revenue record. He also submitted that when entire area of land bearing Survey No.19 was partitioned in the name of heirs of Jagabhai Vashram, the disputed portion of the land which belonged to the Government also mistakenly shown in the name of Jagabhai Vashram and thereafter in the names of his heirs. According to him, land of Survey No.19p1 and Survey No.19p2 belong to the State Government. He also submitted that Government has already filed an FIR against the person concerned of land-grabbing. He therefore prays that these petitions may be rejected. 7. Having considered the submissions made by both sides and the material placed on record, it emerges from record that the land bearing Survey No.19 paiki admeasuring 6 Acres and 18 gunthas originally belonged to one Jagabhai Vasrambhai. It also emerges from the affidavit of respondent no.3 that loan was taken by said Jagabhai Vasrambhai on the land admeasuring 2 Acres and 10 Gunthas out of total land of 6 Acres and 18 gunthas and, ultimately, said portion of land came to be purchased by Special Recovery Officer, Land Development Bank, Palitana, on behalf of the Government on 13.4.1984. It appears that no change has been recorded in the revenue records with regard to disputed portion of land of 2 Acres and 10 Gunthas out of total land of 6 Acres and 18 gunthas, which belonged to Jagabhai Vasrambhai. It appears that due to non-mentioning of any entry regarding purchase of land by the Development Bank for the State Government, entire land continued to remain in the name of Jagabhai Vasrambhai. It also appears that even after partition of the land, no entry was shown in the revenue record regarding ownership of the land. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that fact of purchase of land by the Government of 2 Acres and 10 gunthas was never reflected in revenue records. 8. It also emerges from record that in 2007, one of the heirs of Jagabhai Vasrambhai viz. Veljibhai Jagabhai sold his portion of land admeasuring 8701 sq.mtrs. to one Ramesh Mavji Siddhpura which has been recorded vide entry No.696 on 29.10.2007. Other heirs of said Jagabhai have also sold their respective portion of land, each admeasuring 870 sq.mtrs. to the petitioner viz. Tulsibhai Padmabhai Italia and same was recorded vide entry nos.695 and 697 on 29.10.2007. Accordingly, name of petitioner came to be shown in the revenue records. 9. It also appears from record that on 18.10.2008, petitioner made an application to DDO for using his land bearing Survey No.19 paiki 1 and Survey No.19 paiki 2, admeasuring 17402 sq.mtrs. for residential purpose, whereupon DDO sought opinion from Mamlatdar and on 9.1.2009, DDO granted permission for the petitioner’s land to be used for residential purpose. 10. It emerges from record that due to an application, proceedings have been initiated by the authority in the year 2013. Thus, it is clear from record that the purchasers have purchased the land on the basis of revenue record, wherein there was no mention of ownership of Government. It also appears that there was no actual handing over of possession of the land by metes and bounds to the Development Bank, who purchased the land on behalf of the State Government. If really such exercise of handing over of possession of the land to the Government would have been carried out, then possession would not have remained with the heirs of deceased. If really such exercise of handing over of possession of the land to the Government would have been carried out, then possession would not have remained with the heirs of deceased. It appears that entire transaction of purchase of land is on paper only and, in reality, there is no handing over of possession of land of 2 acres and 10 gunthas. It is also an admitted fact that way back in 2009 NA permission has been granted and now there is also plotting and people have already constructed thereupon. Action was initiated by the Government in 2013, whereas the sale transaction is of 2007 and NA permission was granted for the land in question in 2009. It is also an admitted fact that before granting NA permission, DDO has obtained opinion from concerned authority and, at that time, nobody has objected. Therefore, DDO granted NA permission for residential use. Therefore, no fault could be found on the part of the petitioners herein. Not only that the exercise undertaken by the Government is not within reasonable period of time. 11. Considering all these aspects, both these petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed. Impugned order No.MVV/Hbakhap/Sue/Bhavan/13/2013 dated 31.8.2015 is quashed and set aside and order bearing No.DP/LNP/Case/Reg.No.38/2008-09 dated 9.1.2009 granted NA permission in respect of the lands of Survey Nos.19 paiki 1 and 2, admeasuring 17402 sq.mtrs. is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.