ORDER : R.M. CHHAYA, J. Heard Mr. Y.M Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Shirish Gohil, learned AGP for the respondents on advance copy. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/BNS/25/2015 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners came to be rejected confirming the order dated 04.02.1991 passed by the District Collector, Banaskantha. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it is the case of the petitioners that land bearing survey no. 119 admeasuring 14 acres and 18 gunthas approximately situated at village lorwada taluka Deesa being agricultural land is in possession of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that entry no. 444 dated 09.08.1966 is the entry of gift. The record indicates that as the said transfer was without having any permission and before regnant, the competent authority, i.e., Deputy Collector, Palanpur, by an order dated 29.09.1984, resumed the land in the name of the Government. It appears from the record that the said order was challenged by way of appeal being Appeal No. 184/84 and the said appeal was allowed and the order dated 29.09.1984 was quashed and set aside and the proceedings were remanded back to the Deputy Collector, Palanpur. On remand, the Deputy Collector again decided afresh and believed the breach and passed an order of resuming the land. The predecessor of the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, which culminated into order dated 04.02.1991 The petitioners challenged the same as heirs of deceased Thakore Dalaji Kaslaji by way of the present revise ion in the year 2015, i.e., after 24 years and the same was registered as revision application No. MVV/JMN/BNS/25/2015. The learned Secretary, by the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 impugned in this petition, dismissed the revision. 4. Considering the reasons given in the order, no interference is called for as admittedly, the revision was preferred after a delay of 24 years. It deserves to be noted that even the present impugned order dated 22.07.2015 is challenged before this Court after a delay of 2 6 months for which no reason is given in the petition. In light of such facts arising out of this petition, no interference is called for. It deserves to be noted that even the present impugned order dated 22.07.2015 is challenged before this Court after a delay of 2 6 months for which no reason is given in the petition. In light of such facts arising out of this petition, no interference is called for. However, even while not entertaining the petition on merits, it is provided that it would be open for the petitioners to file an application for fresh grant, which may be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law as per the prevailing policy of the State Government. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of such application if any filed by the petitioners. 5. The petition is not entertained on merits and with the aforesaid direction, the same is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. D.S permitted.