Judgment J.G. CHITRE, J.:---Shri Kumbhakoni with Deshmukh for the petitioner. Respondents have been served but they are absent and none present for them. The petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the M.R.T. on 16-6-1988 in the matter of M.R.T. S.H. II-3/86 (TEN B. 53/86) Pune wherein while deciding the revision petition member of M.R.T. allowed the revision application, set aside the orders passed by the two courts below, declared the sale of suit land to Shivaji Ramchandra Deshmukh as invalid and the possession of the suit land was directed to be restored to Agatrao Dada Jadhav and Bhanudas Dada Jadhav the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The facts need to be stated in brief for understanding the case in better way. Suit lands Survey Nos. 187/9, 187/10 bearing Gat No. 489(490) originally belonged to Dada Jadhav the father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. A proceeding in view of section 320 was initiated on 30-9-1968. The tenant expressed that he was not willing to purchase the said land and the possession of the suit land was handed over to original landlords. The original tenant was Nivrutti Pandurang Kashirsagar and he purchased the suit lands from sons of Dada Jadhav namely, Agatrao and Bhanudas on 20-5-1963 for Rs. 2,000/-. Mutation Entry No. 1649 was entered which was certified on 3-2-1968. However, the certifying officer mentioned while entering the said entry that the said sale transaction was in contravention of provisions of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Tenancy Act" for convenience). 3. After that, the original tenant Nivrutti Pandurang Kshirsagar sold said lands to present petitioner Shivaji Ramchandra Deshmukh for Rs. 8,000/- on 8-8-1969. A mutation entry was entered in that context bearing No. 2168 which was certified on 24-6-1969. 4. A proceeding was initiated in view of provisions of section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act for making an enquiry whether said transaction contravenes the provisions of sections 63, 64 and 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Aval Karkoon and A.L.T. while dealing with the tenancy case No. 63 of 1983 formulated three questions for determination: 1) Whether the transfer is to the agriculturist? 2) Whether transferee was the tenant of the suit land? 3) Whether the said transaction is in contravention of provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act? Aval Karkoon and A.L.T. while dealing with the tenancy case No. 63 of 1983 formulated three questions for determination: 1) Whether the transfer is to the agriculturist? 2) Whether transferee was the tenant of the suit land? 3) Whether the said transaction is in contravention of provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act? He held that the transaction by which landlords sold the suit land to original tenant Nivrutti Pandurang Kshirsagar on 21-5-1963 for Rs. 2,000/- and thereafter the transaction of selling the suit land to Shivaji Ramchandra Deshmukh were illegal transactions. He further held that mutation entry No. 1649 was in context with illegal transaction which was in contravention of provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. However, Aval Karkoon and ALT Madha regularised the said transaction by imposing a penalty of Rupee One and directed Agatrao Dada Jadhav and Bhanudas Dada Jadhav respondent Nos. 2 to 3 to go to the competent authority for getting possession of the suit land. 5. The said judgment and order was challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing an appeal before S.D.O. Madha Division, Kurduwadi. While deciding TNC/Appeal No. 24/84 the said S.D.O. dismissed the appeal and held that possession of suit land of respondent No. 2 stood confirmed. The said judgment and order was challenged by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing revision application before M.R.T. The learned Member of M.R.T. after discussions held that the judgment and order passed by the courts below were incorrect and illegal, therefore he set aside those judgments and orders and declared that sale of suit lands to Shivaji Ramchandra Deshmukh by Nivrutti Pandurang Kashirsagar was invalid. He directed that possession of suit land be restored to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said judgment and order is being assailed by the present writ petition. 6. Shri Kumbhakoni, Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initial sale by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to Nivrutti Pandurang Kshirsagar was a transaction of independent sale because it was effected by registered sale deed and therefore it had no concern whatsoever with the provisions of Tenancy Act. He submitted that the price was paid to vendor according to the market rate and therefore Nivrutti Pandurang Kshirsagar acquired the right to dispose of the said property as he wanted and therefore there was no need of obtaining any permission from any tenancy authority. He submitted that the price was paid to vendor according to the market rate and therefore Nivrutti Pandurang Kshirsagar acquired the right to dispose of the said property as he wanted and therefore there was no need of obtaining any permission from any tenancy authority. He submitted that Aval Karkoon and ALT Madha initiated proceeding in the year 1983 and therefore the said proceeding was bad in law as it was not initiated within reasonable time. He submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were late in moving application for said proceeding. He also pointed out that they had already sold the suit land to Nivrutti Pandurang Kshirsagar and therefore they had no right whatsoever to say that the said sale transactions were bad in law, were fraudulent and therefore they are entitled to get possession of the suit lands. In the alternative, he submitted by placing reliance on the judgment in the matter of (Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim)1, reported in 1997(6) Supreme Court Cases 71 wherein Supreme Court held that suo motu power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. Section 84-C of Bombay Tenancy Act does not prescribe any time for initiation of the proceeding. But in view of settled view taken in several judgments of this Court that wherever power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. He submitted that in the present case the said power has been exercised after 10 years and therefore it cannot be said by any means that the said power has been exercised within a reasonable time. 7. In the present matter this Court upholds the submissions of Shri Kumbhakoni in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the year 1963 the suit land was sold by the heirs of original landlord to the original tenant. There happens to be nothing on record to show that any undue influence or coercion was exercised for getting the said sale deed executed. The record shows that both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not do anything for 10 years. In the year 1963 the suit land was sold by the heirs of original landlord to the original tenant. There happens to be nothing on record to show that any undue influence or coercion was exercised for getting the said sale deed executed. The record shows that both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not do anything for 10 years. It can be presumed that within the period of those 10 years, the present petitioner must have done developments in the said agricultural land therefore what he was enjoying of that land for a period of ten years, after purchasing the said land from the original tenant whom the said land has been sold by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who initiated the said proceeding, should not be put to disadvantage and he should not be made to loose the fruits of money which he spent for purchasing the said land. Apart from that, the fact that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who initiated the said proceedings were the persons who had sold the said lands to original tenant Nivrutti Pandurang Kshirsagar should not be forgotten. So also it should not be forgotten that those two respondents had sold the land to Nivrutti Pandurang Kshirsagar after their father obtained possession from him in view of a proceeding which was initiated before Tahsildar and A.L.T. In these circumstances those two respondents do not have any moral right also to challenge the said transaction by saying that it is illegal. The litigant who sells the property to other after acquiring it through process indicated by statutory provisions, stands estopped from attempting to acquire it by utilising some other statutory provisions of law to disadvantage of such purchaser. He losses moral as well as legal stand also. 8. Reasonableness of the period would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. The Court would be considering whether the person who has to explain such delay was really prevented from initiating the proceeding by grounds which were beyond his control and he was acting during that period diligently. He has to establish his bona fides also. 9. Learned Member of M.R.T. should have noticed this important aspect of the matter which has been covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court quoted supra. He has to establish his bona fides also. 9. Learned Member of M.R.T. should have noticed this important aspect of the matter which has been covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court quoted supra. He should have by keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court which is the law of the land in view of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India should have acted properly in view of long time gap between the said transaction and the application for initiating proceeding. He should have kept in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment supra which was dealing with the suo motu proceeding which was also applicable to the present case by rule of ejusdem generis. 10. Thus, the petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute. Rule of certiorari stands issued in favour of the petitioner. The judgment and order which has been passed by the learned Member of M.R.T. Sub-Divisional Officer, Madha Division and Aval Karkoon and A.L.T. Madha Division stand set aside. The said proceedings stands dropped. No order as to costs. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Stenographer of this Court. Petition allowed. -----