JUDGMENT : 1. The present petitioners are the legal heirs of late Shri Mamaiya Shardulbhai, who had assailed the order dated 16/24.06.1997 (Annexure-E) passed by the Respondent no.1-the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SSRD’ for short) dismissing the Revision Application being No. 11/1993 and confirming the order dated 25.09.1990 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Collector in Appeal No. 449/1990. 2. The case of the petitioners in the nutshell is that the land in question bearing Survey No.265, admeasuring 10 acres situated at village Vanshyali was granted to the father of the petitioners i.e. Mamaiya Shardulbhai under the scheme floated by the State Government to rehabilitate the shepherds. The Assistant Collector, Mahuva having found that said Mamaiya Shardulbhai having transferred the said land to Maganbhai Lavjibhai and Dahyabhai Lavjibhai by executing two agreements to sell in respect of 5 acres of land to each of them and since both these persons were in possession of the said land, said Mamaiya Shardulbhai had committed breach of conditions of the allotment and therefore, the land was liable to be vested in the Government. The Assistant Collector accordingly passed the order on 21.06.1989. Being aggrieved by the said order, the said Mamaiya Shardulbhai filed an appeal being No. 4449/1990 before the Deputy Collector on the ground that the Assistant Collector had passed the order in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, said Mamaiya Shardulbhai did not remain present before the Collector also when the hearing was fixed and therefore, the Collector after taking into consideration the documents produced on record dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector vide the order dated 25.09.1990. The present petitioners on the death of said Mamaiya Shardulbhai filed Revision Application before the SSRD, who vide the impugned order dated 16/24.06.1997 dismissed the said Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by the Collector. 3. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioners that the said Mamaiya, the father of the petitioners was allotted the land in question in the scheme floated by the State Government for the rehabilitation of the shepherds. The Assistant Collector without granting opportunity of hearing to him held that said Mamaiya Shardulbhai had executed sale-deeds in favour of Maganbhai Lavjibhai and Dahyabhai Lavjibhjai. Mangukiya for the petitioners that the said Mamaiya, the father of the petitioners was allotted the land in question in the scheme floated by the State Government for the rehabilitation of the shepherds. The Assistant Collector without granting opportunity of hearing to him held that said Mamaiya Shardulbhai had executed sale-deeds in favour of Maganbhai Lavjibhai and Dahyabhai Lavjibhjai. He further submitted that said Mamaiya Shardulbhai also could not remain present before the Collector and therefore, his appeal was dismissed by the Collector. According to him, the father of the petitioners was very much staying at village and was also cultivating the land in question and there was no breach of condition of the allotment. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha reported in 1969 GLR 992, he submitted that when the period of limitation was not prescribed, the Authority has to exercise powers of Revisions under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Code’ for short) within reasonable time. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Patel Raghav Natha Vs. G.F. Mankodi, Commissioner, Rajkot reported in 1965 GLR 34 to submit that father of the petitioners was issued Sanad in the form of agreement and therefore, the Respondent Authorities had no power to cancel the said Sanad under section 211 of the Code. Learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya has also relied upon various other judgments to submit that the concerned Authority has to exercise revisional powers within reasonable time. 4. However, learned AGP Mr. Venugopal Patel for the Respondent-State submitted that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three authorities that the father of the petitioners had transferred the land in question to third party, and thereby had committed breach of conditions of the allotment of land, this Court may not interfere with the said orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the instant case, it appears that the father of the petitioners i.e. Mamaiya Shardulbhai (Rabari Shardulbhai) was granted the land in question as per the order dated 26.09.1956 (Annexure-A) by the Sama Harta of the Maldhari Rehabilitation Department, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions was that the said allotment was subject to the provisions contained in the Code. One of the conditions was that the said allotment was subject to the provisions contained in the Code. It was also stated therein that the said allottee could not sell or transfer the said land without the previous permission of the Sama Harta and that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the Collector would be at liberty to direct to vest the said land in Government. 6. It appears that said Mamaiya Shardulbhai executed two agreements to sell the said land in question in favour of one Maganbhai Lavjibhai and Dahyabhai Lavjibhai, in respect of which two entries being Nos.1240 and 1241 were recorded in the revenue records on 16.11.1982. The Assistant Collector therefore initiated action against said Mamaiya Shardulbhai as he had committed breach of condition of allotment i.e. Sanad, and passed the order on 21.06.1989. It appears from the said order that the Assistant Collector had not granted proper opportunity of hearing to the said Mamaiya Shardulbhai and therefore he had preferred an appeal before the Collector. However, in the said Appeal also father of the petitioners did not remain present and the Appeal was dismissed. The said Mamaiya Shardulbhai having expired, the petitioners had preferred the Revision Application before the SSRD, however the same was dismissed by the SSRD. Under the circumstances, there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three authorities, as rightly submitted by learned AGP, this Court should not interfere with the same in the petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it appears that the father of the petitioners was granted the new tenure land, subject to the provisions contained in the Code. However, he sought to transfer the said land by executing the agreements to sell in favour of two persons viz. Maganbhai Lavjibhai and Dahyabhai Lavjibhai. As transpiring from the order passed by the SSRD, the said land was already transferred, and the proposed purchasers were put in possession of the land in question, by virtue of the agreements executed by said Mamaiya Shardulbhai. It further appears that two entries being Nos.1240 and 1241 were also made in the revenue records with regard to the said transfer. It further appears that two entries being Nos.1240 and 1241 were also made in the revenue records with regard to the said transfer. Though, the said entries were not certified, the said father of the petitioners having executed the agreements to sell and parted with possession in violation of the terms and conditions of the order of allotment i.e. Sanad, the Assistant Collector had rightly initiated action against him for the breach of conditions. 8. It is sought to be submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Mangukiya for the petitioners that the order of allotment was in the nature of Sanad i.e. the agreement between the Government and the said Mamaiya Shardulbhai, and therefore, the Assistant Collector did not have any authority to revise or cancel the said Sanad in exercise of powers conferred under section 211 of the Code, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Patel Raghav Natha Vs. G.F. Mankodi, Commissioner, Rajkot (Supra). The said submission cannot be accepted. As per the ratio laid down in the said judgment, when as a result of a decision under section 65 of the Code or any other provisions of law, any agreement is entered into between the Government and a subject, then the Government has no jurisdiction under section 211 to revise that decision so as to affect the agreement or to revise any part of the agreement. It is further held in the said decision that in view of the powers vested in the Government under section 211 of the Code, the Government has the right and jurisdiction to revise the terms of Kabuliyat as well as to cancel it in a fit case, but if a document is an agreement between the government and a subject, it is beyond the ken of the powers vested under section 211 of the Code. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that the said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Raghav Natha (Supra) had confirmed the said judgment on other grounds, however had refused to express any view on the alleged distinction between the order granting the permission under section 65 and the agreement contained in the Sanad issued under Rule 87(b) of the Revenue Rules. 9. Raghav Natha (Supra) had confirmed the said judgment on other grounds, however had refused to express any view on the alleged distinction between the order granting the permission under section 65 and the agreement contained in the Sanad issued under Rule 87(b) of the Revenue Rules. 9. So far as the facts of this case are concerned, the Assistant Collector had initiated the action against father of the petitioners for committing breach of conditions imposed on him while granting the land under the scheme of rehabilitation. The Assistant Collector had not exercised the powers under section 211 of the Code, for reviewing the validity of the said Sanad. The Assistant Collector had found from the record that there was breach of terms and conditions of the said Sanad, by which the land in question was allotted to the father of the petitioners, and therefore he had taken action against the father of the petitioners. Thus, the decision in the case of Patel Raghav Natha Vs. G.F. Mankodi, Commissioner, Rajkot (Supra) relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya has no application to the facts of the present case. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya has also failed to point out as to how the Assistant Collector had exercised the powers after an unreasonable period. It appears that the relevant entries being Nos. 1240 and 1241 in respect of the agreements executed by the father of the petitioners were recorded on 16.11.1982, and the number of case registered for the breach of conditions was 187/1982. Both being in the year 1982, it appears that there was no delay on the part of the Assistant Collector in initiating the action against the father of the petitioners. 11. In that view of the matter, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the SSRD, and there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three authorities, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said orders. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.