JUDGMENT
R.K. Abichandani, J.
1. The petitioners seek to challenge the impugned order dated Feb. 8, 1980 passed by the Government under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code canceling the order dated 10th April, 1970 of the Collector, Panchmahals granting the disputed lands to the petitioners and directing the possession to be resumed by the Collector.
2. The record discloses that on March 3,1969, the petitioners made applications to the Government for allotment of waste land for cultivation. The petitioner No. 1 in his application Annexure A sent to the Collector, Ahmedabad, had indicated that he wanted to cultivate the land after his retirement and that he should therefore be allotted 16 acres of land in Sanand Taluka in accordance with the policy of the State Government of allotting waste land to Army personnel for cultivation. The petitioner No. 2 also simultaneously made an application to the Collector, Ahmedabad, for getting 16 acres of land in Sanand Taluka in accordance with the said policy on the ground that he was at that time in Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner No. 2 continues to serve in the Army. It appears that in view of these applications, the petitioners were allotted lands on “Eksali” basis on certain conditions by orders dated 19th April, 1969 at Ann. ‘B’ collectively. It appears that since the land which was allotted to the petitioner No. 1 remained submerged during most of the monsoon season the petitioner requested the Collector to allot him land in Village-Fangadi and accordingly, by order dated 19th June, 1969 he was allotted land in Village Fangadi on ‘Eksali’ basis. Thereafter by an application at Annexure ‘E’ dated 11th September, 1969, the petitioner requested the Government that since he intended to go in fur modern farming which was not possible in the Sanand area he and his son may be allotted 32 acres of land in Mehalol area of Godhra Taluka and on such land being allotted they would surrender the land allotted to them in Sanand Taluka. Pursuant to this application, the Government appears to have written to the Collector on 27-2-1970 and according to the instructions so received the Collector by his order dated 10-4-1970 at Ann. ‘F’ to the petition allotted lands to the petitioners as stated therein.
3. Thereafter, on 28-11-1979, the Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioners calling upon them as to why the said order dated 10-4-1970 of the Collector should not be cancelled and why the land should not be resumed by the Government. The main allegation made against the petitioners was that while making an application for grant of land it was suppressed that 60 acres of agricultural land was standing in the name of petitioner No. 1 in Punjab. It was pointed out that the circumstances under which the Government waste land could be granted were set under the Government Resolution dated 1st March, 1960 as amended from time to time. In response to the show cause notice dated 28-11-1979 it was pointed out that the revisional powers under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code cannot be invoked after a lapse of so many years. It was further pointed out that the petitioner No. 1 had sold away his land in Punjab and had decided to settle in Gujarat since the climate of Gujarat suited him. He pointed out that by order dated 10th April, 1970, the petitioners were given land in exchange of the land which was already allotted to them. He also urged that the forms on which his signature was taken by the Revenue Circle, Inspector were in Gujarati and he had not filled in the particulars himself but had put his signature only. He pointed out that even though he was serving in the Army, the Revenue Circle Inspector had written Air Force in the form. He further pointed out that though he was an agriculturist the Circle Inspector had written ‘no’ against that column. He further pointed out that, though his name was Brigadier M.C. Dadwal, the Circle Inspector had written Thakur Mangatchand C. Dadwal. It was further pointed out that he had sold lands in Punjab on 10-6-1970, i.e., after two months only after the allotment of land, at a throw away price and had invested that amount for the development of the said land which was allotted to the petitioners. The revisional authority placed reliance on the aforesaid form in which it was mentioned that the petitioner No. 1 had “no lands of khatha”. It appears that, a C.B.I, enquiry was made in the matter and ultimately the petitioner No. 1 was not convicted by the Court Marshal. It was held by the revisional authority that the C.B.I, enquiry was under progress till 1973 when the irregularity was brought, to the notice of the Government and therefore revisional powers under Section 211 of the Code were exercised within reasonable time having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It. was held that if the petitioner No. 1 had correctly tarnished the information regarding his holdings of land in Punjab, he would not have been eligible for the allotment of this land. It was further held that the policy of the Government was to grant waste land to Ex-servicemen and she Army Personnel who are likely to retire from service and since the petitioner No. 1 was a high ranking military officer who was in active service he was not eligible for allotment in view of the policy of the Government reflected in the resolution dated 1st March, 1960 as amended by resolutions dated 13-11-1962 and 5-12-1962. As regards, the petitioner No. 2, it was held that he was a cadet and was not an Ex-serviceman nor a Serviceman about to retire and therefore he too was not eligible for allotment of land. It was further held that since the petitioner No. 1 had received Rs. 90,000 by way of sale of his land in Punjab it cannot be said that he was a needy person and that is why also he was not eligible for allotment of land under the said resolution.
4 In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Collector, Panchmahals, it is stated that a person who holds the post of a Brigadier in the Military is not entitled to the land. It is contended that there is no time limit fixed for exercise of revisional powers under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code and even if there was delay it was because the enquiry was conducted by the C.B.I. It is stated that, as per the policy of the Government, the petitioner No. 2 who was in active service of the Army and who was not to retired in near future was rot entitled to grant of land and his grant was also rightly cancelled. As regards the policy declared by the Government in the pamphlet which is referred to in the petition for allotting land to servicemen, it is stated that the Government is not aware of any such pamphlet or any such policy.
5. It appears that, on 20th August. 1990, This Court had directed that the petitioners may make a representation to the appropriate authority for its consideration. Accordingly, the petitioners made a representation on 5-9-1990 to the Government pointing out that they were in possession of the land since 1970 and bad sunk a considerable amount therein, constructed residential premises and She petitioner No. 1 who had retired in Army in 1973 was devoting his full time to earn his livelihood from the said land. It appears that the said representation was passed on by the Government 10 the Collector, Panchmahals and as per the order, which is placed on record today passed on 17-10-1990, the Collector, Panchmahals approved the decision of the Government which was given on 8-2-1990. It is rather surprising that the Collector should have decided the matter finally on the said representation which entailed examination of the propriety of the order of the Government dated 8-2-1990. It was expected of the Government to itself decide the representation because it was directed against the order passed by the Government in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. By the said order dated 17-10-1990, the Collector, Panchmahals rejected the representation of the petitioners by simply repeating some of the grounds on which the revisional powers were exercised under the order dated 8-2-1990. This Court had observed that the representation which may be made to the Government may be considered sympathetically having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and since the representation made to the Government has been considered in the above manner, this matter will have to be decided by This Court on its own merits.
6. The Government exercised its revisional powers under Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code suo motu for canceling order dated 10-4-1970 after a lapse of nearly 10 years. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the Government has urged that there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of powers under Section 211 of the Code. In the affidavit, as noted above, the Government has taken up the contention that since no limitation is prescribed for exercise of its revisional powers under Section 211 the Government was justified in passing the order after a decade for canceling the allotment of lands under the order dated 10-4-1970. In State of Gujarat v. Raghavnatha reported in (1969) X GLR 992 the Supreme Court, while considering the same contention that no period, of limitation was prescribed under Section 211 of the Code for exercise of the revisional powers, in terms, held that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order. It is, therefore, quite clear that merely because the period of limitation was not prescribed for exercise of the revisional powers under Section 211 of the Code, it cannot be exercised after any length of time without regard to its reasonableness. The enquiry which was conducted by C.B.I, seems to have been over by 1973 when recommendations were made to the State Government as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the impugned order dated 8-2-1990. There is no explanation of the gross delay of nearly 7 years after the Government admittedly came to know about the fact that the petitioner No. 1 was holding land in Punjab at the time when this land was allotted to him. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the revisional power has been exercised in this case after a gross delay for which no explanation is put forth and on the contrary a contention is raised with impunity that the powers can be exercised at any time since no limitation is prescribed despite the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raghavnatha’s case (supra) that the power must be exercised in reasonable time. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners disposed of their 60 acres of land in Punjab within a couple of months of allotment of this land on 10-4-1970. There is hardly any valid reason to disbelieve the petitioners when they say that the said amount was invested in this land. Admittedly the petitioner No. 1 after retirement from the Army in 1973 has been cultivating this land devoting his full time for earning his livelihood from the land. A pamphlet officially published by the Government of Gujarat showing concessions and benefits given to Servicemen and Ex-servicemen has been placed on record of this case which clearly shows that concessions were also given for Servicemen for grant of land as mentioned in paragraph 3 if they agreed to cultivate the land personally. It was mentioned that a serving member of Armed Forces so long as he is in the service of the Armed Forces should be deemed to cultivate the land personally if such land is cultivated by servants or by hired labour or through tenants. Despite this clear policy announcement that land could be granted to members of Armed Forces also and not only to Ex-servicemen, it has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the Government is not aware of such policy. It is clear that the person who has sworn this affidavit must not be aware of this policy or any responsible officer would not, in face of this official publication of the policy, have made such a statement in the affidavit. Since the petitioner No. 1 was in active service in the Army and was allotted land in 1969, in view of the policy mentioned in the said Government pamphlet, reliance, which is now sought to be placed on the resolution dated 1st March, 1960 of the Government which refers to its policy in respect of Ex-servicemen, is wholly misconceived. Even the resolution dated 1st March, 1960 which is at Annexure ‘I’ in Clause 13 provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in that resolution, the conditions mentioned therein may be relaxed by the Government and the Government reserve to itself the power to grant land in special cases having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. This resolution mentions category of Ex-servicemen at Item No. 10 of paragraph 3(b) and it does not deal with Servicemen. The policy which is declared in the pamphlet as regards Servicemen does not contain any limitation as is mentioned in paragraph 4 which provides that no grant shall be made in favour of persons who already owned land equal or exceeding one economic holding. Paragraph 4 has a clear reference to the categories which are mentioned in paragraph 3(b) in which Ex-servicemen are mentioned at Item 10, while there is no mention of Servicemen. It is not shown as to whether similar fetter existed in respect of Servicemen. Apart from this, it is clear that, in their application dated 3rd March, 1969, the petitioners simply referred to the policy of the Government of allotting waste land to Army personnel and requested the Government to allot land. It is not the case of the Government that, at that time any information was required to be given in any form or that the petitioner’s gave any wrong information at that time. Admittedly, lands were allotted to the petitioners pursuant to the said application dated 3rd March, 1969. What was done by order dated 10th April, 1970 was to accede to the request of the petitioners to grant lands in Godhra Taluka in exchange of the lands already granted to them in Sanand Taluka. Since the land was allotted in Godhra Taluka to these petitioners in lieu of the land already allotted to them in Sanand Taluka and not on the basis of any form in which the petitioner No. 1 may have signed, there was hardly any question of Collector, Panchmahals, having been misled on the basis of the form which was obtained by the Circle Inspector and filled in by him having taken the signature of the petitioner No. 1. It has been amply demonstrated by the petitioners from certain columns which have been referred to above that, while filling in the form, the Circle Inspector was so careless that he committed errors in mentioning the name of the petitioner No. 1 and even the fact about the nature of service. Though he was in the Army, it was mentioned that he was in the Air Force. When the petitioners had made applications initially for allotment of land, it is nobody’s case that they were required to disclose any holding of land in Punjab. Admittedly, the petitioners had disposed of their land in Punjab within a couple of months of their being allotted land in Godhra Taluka. The petitioner No. 1 has put in for over a decade, all this labour in cultivating the land. It is also stated that a residential house is constructed in the land. It is, therefore, clear that the Government is estopped from disturbing the position now after a period of decade at the time of filing of the petition and 20 years by now. It is clear from the facts on record that the petitioners have not intended to defraud the Government because the order dated 10-4-1970 allots the land to them in lieu of the land already allotted to them and has no reference to any statement in the form on which signature of the petitioner No. I was taken by the Circle Inspector on 29th March, 1970.
7. Under the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 8th February, 1980 at Annexure ‘K’ to the petition is arbitrary and illegal and deserves to be set aside. The impugned order dated 8-2-1980 of the Government at Annexure ‘K’ to the petition is, therefore, set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.