JUDGMENT : The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) in SRD /JMN/BNS/ 18/ 97 (DASU) dated 02.03.2000, whereby the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) was pleased to reject the Revision Application filed by the applicant-petitioner herein and confirmed the order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha dated 10th October 1996 in Appeal No./JMN/4/ APPEAL/ 39/ 94. 1.1 The Collector, Banaskantha was pleased to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Palanpur dated 20th December 1993, whereby the Deputy Collector, Palanpur was pleased to order cessation of all the rights of respondent no.1 in Sharat Bhang Case No.15 of 1993 and ordered that the land bearing Survey No.161 of Moje Juna Deesa, Taluka Deesa, admeasuring 1 acre, 28 gunthas shall vest in Government without any encumbrance. 2. The facts of the case are that the present petitioner had purchased the aforesaid land (land bearing Survey No.161), Moje Juna Deesa (1 acre, 28 gunthas) from one Sipai Rasulkhan Sahebkhan and others, which was in the name of respondent no.1 as original owners. The land was of “Pasaita Chakariyat Inami Satta Prakar”. The land was new tenure land and the same was sold to the petitioner without obtaining any prior permission for a consideration of Rs.625/-by registered sale deed and this transaction of sale by registered sale deed was recorded in the revenue record by entry no.1206, but the said entry was not confirmed as the land was new tenure land. It was on account of breach of condition and transfer of land, the Mamlatdar, Deesa made a proposal for taking action for breach of condition. Accordingly, the matter/ case was registered and hearing was kept on 10th September 1993. 2.1 Respondent no.1-seller represented before the Mamlatdar that the seller did not have any idea of the land being new tenure land, therefore, no permission was obtained before making the sale, but after sale, the moment it came to the notice of the seller the possession of the land was not handed over. It was the case of respondent no.1 before the Deputy Collector that the land is in their possession on the date of hearing. It was also contended by respondent no.1 that in Pani Patrak name of Bhaichand Nala is wrongly entered. A request was made by respondent no.1 that ‘notice be filed’. It was the case of respondent no.1 before the Deputy Collector that the land is in their possession on the date of hearing. It was also contended by respondent no.1 that in Pani Patrak name of Bhaichand Nala is wrongly entered. A request was made by respondent no.1 that ‘notice be filed’. 2.2 Respondent no.2-present petitioner submitted before the Deputy Collector that the land was purchased by his father for a sum of Rs.625/- and it is in their possession. Entries of inheritance and also of partition among brothers are made and are confirmed by the higher authorities. It was also stated before the Deputy Collector by respondent no.2 that the adjoining land bearing Survey Nos.162 and 163 are of his ownership. Respondent no.2 did make request to the Deputy Collector that in the event it is held that there is a breach of condition the same may be regularized on payment of the required amount of penalty. 3. The Deputy Collector on careful consideration of the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the land is of “Pasaita Chakariyat Inami Satta Prakar” and it was in the name of respondent no.1 by entry no.217 and by entry no.536 it is already forfeited and names of the respondents and other persons are entered as licence-holders. Entry no.1206 was made about sale, but the same is not confirmed by the higher authorities. Despite that fact name of respondent no.2 is entered by way of inheritance of Entry No.3329. Later on, Entry No.4426 is made about partition between brothers to record the same and that entry is also confirmed by the higher authorities. 3.1 The Deputy Collector also recorded that respondent no.1 is a licence-holder and despite the fact that the land is not re-granted to the licensee-possession holder, Pasaiti land is sold which is totally illegal. Besides that as name of respondent no.2 is found in ‘Pani Patrak’, wherefrom transfer of land stands proved. Respondent no.1 has not registered any objection at the time of making entries no.3329 and 4426 and therefore, it can be inferred that the land is transferred by respondent no.1. 3.2 In view of the aforesaid facts and finding being recorded, the Deputy Collector passed order aforesaid. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector, appeal was preferred before the Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur, which came to be dismissed. 3.2 In view of the aforesaid facts and finding being recorded, the Deputy Collector passed order aforesaid. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector, appeal was preferred before the Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur, which came to be dismissed. The Collector, while reiterating the facts of the case, did note the contentions raised by the present petitioner, who was appellant before the Collector, Banaskantha. One of the contention was that the land was purchased in the year 1961 by registered sale deed dated 22nd June 1961. Entry was made on 8th August 1961 and it was confirmed on 12th January 1962, but then the Deputy Collector recorded in his order that entry is not confirmed. The appellant did contend that entry is confirmed and besides in this very Survey Number entry about inheritance and entry about partition are also confirmed. It was emphatically contended on behalf of the appellant that it will not be proper if entry is cancelled after 30 years and land is entered in the name of the Government. A decision of the High Court of Gujarat was referred and it was contended that amount of 6 times of cess is paid and Talati has issued receipt thereof. It was also contended that according to Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968, such sale can be regularized and therefore, it was prayed that sale may be regularized. 4.1 The Collector has recorded that on behalf of seller no contention was raised. The Collector took into consideration the record of the land. The Collector has reiterated that the land was of “Pasaita Chakariyat Inami Satta Prakar” and it was so entered by entry no.536. Later on, it is deleted as ‘Pasaita land’ and entered in the name of the Government as the land is sold without taking prior permission. The Collector has also recorded that the amount equal to six times of cess of the land is also not paid, therefore, there is an encumbrance on the land. This fact was mentioned in entry no.1206. 4.2 The Collector has specifically noted that according to Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 there was a provision for regularizing sale of such land. But then, by Government Resolution dated 13th July 1983, Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 came to be cancelled. This fact was mentioned in entry no.1206. 4.2 The Collector has specifically noted that according to Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 there was a provision for regularizing sale of such land. But then, by Government Resolution dated 13th July 1983, Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 came to be cancelled. Therefore, at this stage though prayed by the appellants, sale cannot be regularized as per the contents of Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968. 4.3 The Collector finally came to the conclusion that, ‘as no prior permission was taken before effecting sale; decision of the court below does not warrant any amendment, change or interference, and hence this appeal is dismissed’. 5. It is this order of the Collector which was the subject matter of Revision Application before the Special Secretary (Appeals) and the Special Secretary (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Collector after considering the contentions raised by the appellant-the petitioner herein and perusing the record of the case. 5.1 It is this order of the Special Secretary (Appeals) along with the orders of the Collector and the Deputy Collector, which are under challenge in this petition. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Rathod appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that there is inordinate delay of 32 years in taking into consideration the breach of condition in the matter of sale of land which took place in the year 1961 by registered sale deed dated 22nd June 1961. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others, reported in 1969 (10) GLR 992 (Supreme Court), wherein the Hon’ble the Apex Court was pleased to hold that when no period of limitation is prescribed under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the case should be decided under this section ‘within reasonable time’. In view of section 65 reasons for passing order must also be indicated. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Government provided for regularization by Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 and that Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 should be applicable to the present case as sale had taken place in the year 1961. In view of section 65 reasons for passing order must also be indicated. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Government provided for regularization by Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 and that Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 should be applicable to the present case as sale had taken place in the year 1961. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 is cancelled subsequently by Government Resolution of 1983, which will not be applicable to the facts of the case of the present petitioner. 6. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in similar facts Deputy Collector, Palanpur was pleased to pass order on 13th October 1988 and was pleased to regularize the transfer of land on certain conditions. A copy of that order is produced at Annexure ‘F’ (page 27). 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner in support of his prayer submitted that in the event the Court is of the opinion that there is a breach of condition and orders passed by the Secretary cannot be faulted with, then as held by this Court in the matter of Patel Virabhai Devabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2000 AIHC 4620, the orders of the Deputy Collector, the Collector and the Special Secretary (Appeal) be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the Deputy Collector to consider afresh. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that none of the authorities right from the Deputy Collector to the Special Secretary (Appeal) has dealt with the aspect of delay in the matter. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that sale was of the year 1961 and the Deputy Collector took note of breach of condition in the year 1993 and thus, there was delay of long 32 years. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that only on that short ground the Collector ought to have quashed the order of the Deputy Collector or at least the Special Secretary ought to have quashed the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Collector both. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that only on that short ground the Collector ought to have quashed the order of the Deputy Collector or at least the Special Secretary ought to have quashed the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Collector both. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that now the petitioner is before this Court, which is required to quash and set aside the orders of all the three authorities below and the petitioner is required to be declared to be lawfully in possession of the land and he should be allowed to retain the land. 7.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that while considering the case of the petitioner following facts are required to be kept in sight: (a) cultivation of this land is the only source of livelihood for the petitioner, (b) since 1961 the petitioner is in possession of the land (father of the petitioner after purchasing in 1961 entered into possession of the land, he expired in 1984), (c) The petitioner has spent a considerable amount for development of the land for cultivation, and (d) The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had shown his readiness and willingness to pay the penalty before all the authorities and is ready to pay even now, any penalty for the alleged breach of condition. 8. The facts of the present case are glaring. It is true that sale deed has taken place in the year 1961, not only that it was registered sale deed. It is also not in dispute that the said sale transaction was reflected in the revenue record by entry no.1206 on 8th August 1961. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that merely by entry in the revenue record his title has become absolute and that it cannot be called in question, but at the same time by bringing the said transaction in question in the year 1993 by Deputy Collector, is definitely required to be considered by this Court. 8.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that there is a xerox copy of receipt produced at page 16, Annexure ‘C’. It is dated 27th February 1964. It is mentioned therein that father of the petitioner paid six times cess for Survey No.161. 8.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that there is a xerox copy of receipt produced at page 16, Annexure ‘C’. It is dated 27th February 1964. It is mentioned therein that father of the petitioner paid six times cess for Survey No.161. That being so, the authorities ought to have taken into consideration the same and ought to have decided the matter on that basis. 8.2 The Court while considering the case, is alive to the aforesaid aspects. But then Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the sale is in breach of condition, viz. sale is made without obtaining necessary permission. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that ignorance of law can never be a defence for having acted contrary to law and the Court is also conscious of the fact that mere passage of time cannot validate an invalid act and therefore, it will be appropriate to refer to decision of this Court in the matter of Uma Small Scale Industrial Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Collector, Surat & others, reported in 2002(1) GLR 226 , wherein this Court was pleased to accept the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, who submitted that, “exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters will amount to perpetuating illegality which is committed by the parties.” It was also submitted by the learned AGP that this point is concluded in Special Civil Application No.5516 of 1990 and that exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is neither in the interest of justice nor in the interest of society. The Court was pleased to hold that, ‘while it is true that power under section 211 is to be exercised within reasonable time, but where the order passed by a subordinate authority is non-est, decision in the case of Raghav Natha’s case (supra) cannot be invoked’. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that only on the ground that there is inordinate delay of 32 years in noticing the breach of condition and taking action, the sale transaction cannot be declared to be valid. Only because the authorities did not take note of breach of condition-cannot help the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that ‘taking note of breach of condition’ and ‘validity of transaction’ are two different things. Only because the authorities did not take note of breach of condition-cannot help the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that ‘taking note of breach of condition’ and ‘validity of transaction’ are two different things. Even when the authorities fail to take note of breach of condition in a particular case, the transaction does not become valid on lapse of a particular period, but at the same time it is true that the question of grant of relief to such party, who is held to be a bona fide purchaser of land in breach of a particular condition can always be considered by this Court. 10. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the facts of the case of Patel Virabhai Devabhai (supra) are similar to the case on hand. This Court is not able to accept this submission, but then independent of that the Court can always consider the question of grant of relief to the petitioner in light of other relevant factors which are pleaded by the petitioner and pressed into service by the learned advocate for the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner had approached the authorities prior to 30th July 1983 the authorities were duty bound to give benefit of Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968, but once that Government Resolution dated 11th June 1968 is cancelled by Government Resolution dated 13th July 1983, the petitioner cannot ask for benefit of earlier Government Resolution only on the ground that transaction was prior to GR dated 11th June 1968 (sale is of 22nd June 1961). The aforesaid question may not be gone into in any further detail in light of the fact that the Court is considering the question of grant of relief in light of the peculiar facts of the case. 11. The submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner about giving the same treatment as is given to another party by order dated 13th October 1988 is also not wroth accepting inasmuch as there cannot be a precedent of exercising discretion when the facts of two cases are different. Similarly, the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner about the delay and non consideration of the same by the authorities is also found not worth accepting. 12. Similarly, the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner about the delay and non consideration of the same by the authorities is also found not worth accepting. 12. Coming to the aspect of grant of relief to the present petitioner, during the course of argument it was suggested to the learned advocate for the petitioner to take instructions whether the petitioner is ready and willing to pay ‘today’s Jantri price’ to the Government irrespective of the contents of any Government Resolution, which is claimed to be there, but copy of which is not available on record to protect his possession of the land in question. The learned advocate for the petitioner, on telephonic instructions, states that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay today’s Jantri price for the land in question to protect his possession. That being so, the Court is required to consider the factors which can be said to be relevant and can be said to have bearing on the aspect of grant of relief by this Court. The said factors are that (i) the land is purchased by father of the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 22nd June 1961, (ii) it is not in dispute that entry was made bearing entry no.1206 in the revenue record about the said sale transaction, (iii) there is receipt at page 16, which does indicate that the amount was paid on 27th February 1964 and it is mentioned ‘six times cess for Revenue Survey No.161’ and the person who paid is mentioned to be ‘Ghanchi Nala Dungar’, viz. father of the present petitioner, (iv) the land is in possession of the father of the present petitioner until he expired in 1984 and thereafter with petitioner since then (after sale was executed in 1961). When the person is cultivating land, an inference can be drawn that he must have been incurring necessary expenses for developing that land for all these years, and (v) Statement of the petitioner that agriculture is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and the adjoining lands are also belonging to the petitioner. Last but not the least (vi) readiness and willingness of the petitioner to pay penalty for lapse which cannot be attributed only to the petitioner (seller was equally responsible for that, but having pocketed sale consideration he is not affected like the petitioner). Last but not the least (vi) readiness and willingness of the petitioner to pay penalty for lapse which cannot be attributed only to the petitioner (seller was equally responsible for that, but having pocketed sale consideration he is not affected like the petitioner). The Court is of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the matter is sent back to the Deputy Collector after quashing all the aforesaid three orders for considering the matter afresh keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in this judgment which are made in the peculiar facts of the case and will not apply as a precedent to other cases. 12.1 But before that the petitioner shall file an undertaking to this Court within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of the receipt of this order that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay ‘today’s Jantri price’ of the land. This order is required to be made taking into consideration the fact that the person is attached to this land and is holding adjoining lands and therefore, uprooting him from this land will not be in fitness of things and will not meet ends of justice. 13. In the result this petition is allowed. The orders impugned, viz. (i) order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) in SRD /JMN/BNS/ 18/ 97 (DASU) dated 02.03.2000 (Annexure ‘A’), (ii) order of the Deputy Collector in Sharat Bhang Case No.15 of 1993 dated 20.12.1993 (Annexure ‘D’) and (iii) order of the Collector, Banaskantha, Palanpur in Appeal No./JMN/4/ APPEAL/ 39/ 94 dated 10.10.1996 (Annexure ‘E’) are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Collector to decide the matter afresh of regularizing the transaction of sale which took place by registered sale deed dated 22nd June 1961 and in the event all other things are found in favour of the petitioner the land be regularized in favour of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall pay ‘today’s Jantri price’. Rule is made absolute. No order as to cost. 14. Rule is made absolute. No order as to cost. 14. Taking into consideration the age of the litigation and taking into consideration that for all these years the petitioner is having a hanging sword over his head it is directed that the Deputy Collector shall give due priority to the matter to decide the same as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Petition allowed.