JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Jamnagar dated 31.1.1990 in R.R.T./REVI/10/89 on the basis of which the impugned mutation entry no. 503 has been made in the revenue record be declared as not binding to the petitioner and enforceable against him in all respects and for all purposes whatsoever and that the same be declared in-effective, unenforceable and invalid in the eye of law and the order pursuant thereto made by the SSRD in a Revision Application No. 4/1997 on 3.6.1997/22.5.1997 in so far as the same entailing an adverse and prejudicial effect to the rights and interest of petitioner in the land bearing survey no. 24 paiki, be reversed and set aside. 2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. 3. The facts of the present petition are that the petitioner had purchased the land bearing survey no. 24 paiki from its original owners - present respondents no. 3 & 4 by registered sale deed, which was duly executed and registered on 5.2.1986, and therefore, the petitioner has been put in actual possession of the said agricultural land and is personally cultivating the same since then. Pursuant to the aforesaid transaction, mutation entry in the Revenue Record has also been inserted at sr. no. 360 reflecting the aforesaid transaction and the name of the present petitioner as a prospective purchaser and occupant of the said land has been entered into. The said mutation entry had been carried out on 15.2.1987 in the revenue record which was duly approved by the then Mamlatdar way back in the year 1987. That prior to the aforesaid transaction, the said land bearing survey no. 24 paiki was purchased by respondents no. 3 and 4 jointly with one Bhogilal Mulakchand Joshi from its original owner Khengarji Nathuji in the year 1974 by way of registered sale deed dated 23.8.1974 and a mutation entry to that effect was also made in the revenue Record at sr. no. 276 on 25.3.1981 which was subsequently approved by the Mamlatdar, Jamnagar. Thereafter, Shri Bhogilal Mulukchand Joshi, one of the co-owners of the said land had relinquished his share of such land in favour of the rest of the two co-owners i.e. the present respondents no. no. 276 on 25.3.1981 which was subsequently approved by the Mamlatdar, Jamnagar. Thereafter, Shri Bhogilal Mulukchand Joshi, one of the co-owners of the said land had relinquished his share of such land in favour of the rest of the two co-owners i.e. the present respondents no. 3 & 4 by way of executing a deed duly registered on 15.11.1983 before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jamnagar. Accordingly, a mutation entry no. 302 was made in the Revenue Record at the relevant time on 15.1.1984 which was subsequently approved by the Mamlatdar, Jamnagar. In this way, the respondents no. 3 and 4 have become the owners of the said land since 15.11.1983 and the present petitioner had purchased the said land from the present respondents no. 3 and 4 on 5.2.1986. That in respect of the Revenue Entry no. 276 made and certified in the year 1981 in respect of land bearing survey no. 24 paiki, the Assistant Collector, Jamangar had suo-motu initiated proceedings bearing No. RRT-REVI-10/1989 under section 54 of the Saurashtra Ghar-khed, Tenancy Settlement & Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 and sought to revise the said entry no. 276 pertaining to this land under Rule 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 after a long period of 15 years from the alleged transaction which was made in the year 1974. The Assistant Collector, Jamnagar, after issuing notice to the respective parties, barring the present petitioner, vide order dated 31.1.1990 had cancelled revenue entry no. 276 and the alleged transaction of the land in question entered into between the present respondents no. 3 and 4 and Bhogilal M. Doshi and Khengarji Nathuji (Ori. Owner) has been held in contravention of section 54 of the said Ordinance and all the aforesaid persons were ordered and directed to be expelled and evicted from the said land after holding their possession to be unlawful, that against the said order dated 31.1.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector Jamnagar, present respondent no. 3 had preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Jamnagar, which was partly allowed and set aside the order dated 31/1/1990 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector to decide the same afresh after issuing notices to all the concerned including the present petitioner. 3 had preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Jamnagar, which was partly allowed and set aside the order dated 31/1/1990 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector to decide the same afresh after issuing notices to all the concerned including the present petitioner. That one Bhogilal Doshi had also preferred an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 2.3.1991, against which, he preferred revision application No. 11 of 1991 before the Revenue Tribunal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.3.1996. Against the said order, said Shri Bhogilal Doshi had approached the Special Secretary, Revenue Department by filing Revision Application which was also summarily dismissed vide order dated 22.5.1997. In the said revision application, applicant Bhogilal Doshi had joined the present petitioner as a party - opponent along with others of his own. The petitioner had neither appeared before the SSRD in person at the time of hearing nor the petitioner had any opportunity of presenting his case in an independent manner as an aggrieved party directly affected by any order in writing of any competent authority against the petitioner. The petitioner having come to know that the land in question which is in his possession and ownership has been treated to be that of Government land and a mutation entry no. 503 to that effect has also been made in the revenue record, the petitioner had approached the SSRD by way of filing a review application under the provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act bearing no. 4/97 which was directed to be filed. Hence, the present petition. 4. Mr. N.V. Solanki learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that even otherwise the Asstt. Collector, Jamnagar had no jurisdiction under law to revise the mutation entry no. 276 after a long period of 15 years in suo-motu exercise of revisional powers inasmuch as the said power is required to be exercised within a reasonable time and that the same cannot be exercised arbitrarily after a lapse of years together as laid down by the Hon. Apex Court in several decision and followed by this Court in catena of decision on this subject. This High Court has, following the ratio laid down in Raghav Natha's case, (1969) GLR 992 (SC) specifically held that the power of revision conferred under Rule 108 of the Rules is in no way different then such power under section 211 of the Code and both are subject to the same limitation while construing the concept of "Reasonable time". In the instant case, the exercise of revisional power by the Asstt. Collector Jamnagar after a pretty long time which time is unequivocally an unreasonable time, is illegal, and unauthorised on the face of it and hence such an order is inherently also ultra vires and same cannot have any binding effect in the eye of law and in no case to the petitioner herein. He further submitted that no entry in the revenue record can be lawfully made on the footing of an order which is non est and void ab initio. On this court also, the said mutation entry no. 503 deserves to be set aside. 5. Mr. Solanki learned advocate further submitted that while exercising such revisional powers under rule 108 of the Rules, the Asstt. Collector, Jamnagar had no jurisdiction whatsoever to declare the sale transaction being in violation of section 54 of the Ordinance, inasmuch as the Asstt. Collector by virtue of rule -108 has a limited jurisdiction as prescribed therein and that he cannot act in excess of his jurisdiction in declaring the transaction as invalid which power obviously vests in the Collector. On this ground also, the said order of the Asstt. Collector dated 31.1.1990 is legally not tenable at law and cannot be given any effect for any purposes whatsoever. The action of making mutation entry no. 503 based on such illegal order in the same way remains illegal and invalid in all respects and cannot be allowed to be enforceable. 6. Mr. Solanki further submitted that the petitioner has been the owner of this land since 1986 and is in actual and personal cultivation of such land since then and has incurred substantial amount of expenses towards its growth and development. On account of such mutation entry no. 503, made in the revenue record outright in an illegal and arbitrary manner and in super session of the previous legal and valid entry no. On account of such mutation entry no. 503, made in the revenue record outright in an illegal and arbitrary manner and in super session of the previous legal and valid entry no. 360 reflecting the name of the petitioner and revealing his rights, a situation has arisen whereby the petitioner has been deprived of his own land behind his back and without being heard by any authority whatsoever in an arbitrary manner resulting into great prejudice and miscarriage of justice so far as the petitioner is concerned. As a matter of fact, even though he is presently in actual possession of the land, his rights and interest in the said land have stood extinguished on account of insertion of such mutation entry no. 503 in an arbitrary manner and that an irreparable damage has been caused to the petitioner and is likely to be still caused if by dint of such entry no. 503 the State proceeds to dispossess the present petitioner and hence the petitioner is required to be protected forthwith by passing appropriate order in this petition. 7. Mr. Solanki learned advocate submitted that the order of the Asstt. Collector dated 31.1.1990 is even otherwise patently unlawful inasmuch as the provisions of section 54 of the said Ordinance and the Ordinance as a whole cannot be invoked in this case and cannot be legally applied in respect of this land, in view of the fact that according to the knowledge and information derived by the petitioner, the said land is subsequently comprised within the limits of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation vide publication of Notification in that regard by the State of Gujarat long back and consequently, in view of the provisions of section 79 of the said Ordinance, section 54 cannot be invoked and applied in the present case. He submits that the failure to examine this material question of law going to the root of the case has also made such order of the Asstt. Collector dated 31.1.1990 inherently illegal, unauthorised and de-formative in all respects and the same cannot have any effect on any count. Mr. He submits that the failure to examine this material question of law going to the root of the case has also made such order of the Asstt. Collector dated 31.1.1990 inherently illegal, unauthorised and de-formative in all respects and the same cannot have any effect on any count. Mr. Solanki learned advocate has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Rinki Shashikant Gandhi v. Mamlatdar Vadodara Taluka & Ors., reported in 2012(3) GCD 1878 (Guj.), wherein, this Court has observed as under: "The Collector, under sub-rule (6) of Rule 108 is not vested with power to direct forfeiture of the land to the State Government. The direction in the impugned order, to this effect, is beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Collector under Rule 108(6) in R.T.S. Proceedings." 8. Mr. Solanki has submitted that the even if the reply of the State is considered and the grounds that under the Ordinance, it is the Collector, who is the authority and not the Asstt. Collector and the other ground that while taking suo-motu action, the Asstt. Collector cannot be decide any other issue and allowing the R.T.S. Proceedings, he could not have passed the order of eviction. The decision of this court in the case of Ravichand Manekchand Sheth & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2006(2) GLR 1567 and the decision of this Court in the case of Rinki Shashikant Gandhi v. Mamlatdar Vadodara Taluka & Ors., reported in 2012 (3) GCD 1878 (Guj.), will be helpful to the petitioner. 9. Mr. J.K. Shah learned AGP has heavily relied on the reply filed by the State and submitted that one Khengarji Nathuji of village Sapada was the owner of the land bearing survey no. 24 admeasuring 8 acres and 32 gunthas. One Narendra Jethalal respondent no. 3 herein, Ravaji Jaga, respondent no. 4 herein and Bhogilal Mulukchand have jointly purchased the above referred land from its original owner Khengarji Nathuji. By way of entry no. 276 in village form as mutated and certified on 21.3.1981. Thus, the aforesaid transaction was in favour of non-agriculturist. The Asstt. Collector, Jamnagar after hearing the parties by his judgment and order dated 31.1.90 set aside the sale transaction and the possession on the land by the purchaser was held to be illegal and ordered to evict them summarily. At the same time, entry no. Thus, the aforesaid transaction was in favour of non-agriculturist. The Asstt. Collector, Jamnagar after hearing the parties by his judgment and order dated 31.1.90 set aside the sale transaction and the possession on the land by the purchaser was held to be illegal and ordered to evict them summarily. At the same time, entry no. 276 was also cancelled by the Asstt. Collector, Jamnagar, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing the parties and perused the documents on record. However, considering the affidavit-in-reply and the rejoinder and the sequence of events as stated in para-2 and 3 of the rejoinder, this Court, without delving into other aspects of the matter, this petition requires to be allowed only on the ground that there is enormous delay of 15 years after the transaction took place and after a period of nine years from the date of certifying the entry, this itself is a ground to quash and set aside the order of authorities below and the petition requires to be allowed. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.3.1990 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Jamnagar in R.R.T./REVI/10/89 and the order dated 3.6.1997/22.5.1997 passed by the SSRD in a Revision Application No. 4/1997 are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.