JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Manan Shah, learned advocate for Respondent No. 4. 2. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that: "12(B) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2001 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State-respondent No. 1 in Revision Application No. SRD/HKP/ST/32/96 (Annexure-C) and also to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26-30/12/1995 passed by the learned Collector, Surat-respondent No. 2 in RTS Revision Case - Kamrej No. 125/Karjan/1976 (Annexure-B) declaring and holding both the said impugned orders without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid, unjust, improper and against the settled legal position." 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 25.09.2001 passed by Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department, whereby the Secretary i.e. Respondent No. 1 rejected the application filed by present petitioners and confirmed the order dated 30.12.1995 passed by the Collector. So far as factual background is concerned, the Petitioners have averred and stated that: "3. The relevant facts of the case of the petitioners, in nutshell are as under. The petitioners submit that Mohanbhai Nathubhai, original occupier of the land bearing Block No. 346 (Revenue Survey Nos. 495 and 496) admeasuring 17 acres and 12 Gunthas, situated in village Karjan of Kamrej Taluka in Surat District (hereinafter referred to as "the land in question"), could not pay up the Govt. dues of Rs. 4,269-95 and therefore, the public auction was held on 28/12/1979 to sell out the land in question. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and Kesurbhai Valjibhai jointly purchased the said land in question for a consideration of Rs. 12001/- and accordingly, the Mutation Entry No. 1976 dated 15/4/1980 was recorded in the V.F. No. VI and Revenue Records in pursuance of the order dated 8/2/1980 passed by the learned Deputy Mamlatdar (Recovery), Kamrej. The learned Mamlatdar, Kamrej, certified the said Mutation Entry on 19/8/1980. True copy of the said Mutation Entry No. 1976 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A to this petition. 4. The petitioners state and submit that the land in question is developed and made more fertile by the petitioners, by investing huge amount and incurring huge expenditure. The petitioners submit that Kesurbhai Valjibhai had expired on 8/8/2000 and therefore the petitioners Nos. 4. The petitioners state and submit that the land in question is developed and made more fertile by the petitioners, by investing huge amount and incurring huge expenditure. The petitioners submit that Kesurbhai Valjibhai had expired on 8/8/2000 and therefore the petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 have been brought on record, being heirs and legal representatives of deceased Kesurbhai Valjibhai. The petitioners state and submit that the petitioners are agriculturists and holding different agricultural lands. The petitioners further state and submit that they have come to know that Mohanbhai Nathubhai has already expired on 15/12/1999 and therefore, they have joined the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 as respondents, being the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Mohanbhai Nathubhai. 5. The Petitioners further submit that the respondent No. 2-Collector, Surat for the first time after the recording of the Mutation Entry No. 1976 on 15/4/1980, issued as show cause notice dated 19/9/1994 in exercise of his powers under Rule 108(6) of the GLR Rules for setting aside the said Entry for the alleged breach of the provisions of Section 2(6) and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short referred to as "Tenancy Act"). The petitioners submit that such suo motu revisional powers thus, have been exercised, that too, for the alleged breach of the provisions of another enactment at such a belated period, after 14 years. The petitioners have thus, dragged to face the litigation initiated in suo motu exercise of powers after 14 years. The petitioners further submit that the learned Collector, without properly appreciating the submissions and also without appreciating the settled legal position set aside the Mutation Entry No. 1976, under his order dated 26-30/12/1995 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B to this petition. 6. The petitioners therefore, having no other alternative challenged the order of the learned Collector by filing Revision Application No. SRD/HKP/ST/32/96 before the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, who had granted the interim order to maintain status quo. It is submitted that the petitioners specifically raised the contention in respect of the exercise of powers beyond the reasonable period, however, without appreciating or considering at all, the learned Secretary (Appeals), cursorily and mechanically rejected the Revision Application and confirmed the order of the learned Collector, under the order date 25/9/2001. True copy of the said order dated 25/9/2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C to this petition." 4. True copy of the said order dated 25/9/2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C to this petition." 4. From the facts stated by the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners purchased certain parcel of land through public auction. The said transaction was entered into Revenue Record and entry No. 1976 was mutated in village form No. 6 in April, 1980. About 14 years after the transaction was executed and was entered into the Revenue Record, the Collector issued show cause notice in September, 1994, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the mutated entry No. 1976 should not be set aside and why it should not be declared that transaction was effected in breach of Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act read with Section 2(6) of the Act. The notice came to be issued in exercise of powers under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code (GLRC). 5. The Collector considered the reply and submissions by the petitioners and vide order dated 30.12.1995, the Collector directed that the Entry No. 1976 shall stand deleted. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 30.12.1995 passed by the Collector, the petitioners preferred Revision Application before Secretary (Appeals) i.e. Respondent No. 1. The petitioners challenged the Collector's order on two main grounds namely after issuing notice in exercise of power under Rule 108(6) of the GLR Rules and while exercising the power under the said provision, the Authority could not have considered provision of other Statute and could not have declared the transaction invalid by invoking provisions of other Statute and that the proceedings were initiated after unreasonable and inordinate delay and, therefore, the proceedings were hit by abnormal delay. The Secretary(Appeals), rejected the Revision Application vide order dated 25.09.2001. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have taken out present petition. 8. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners reiterated the factual background as well as the contention which was raised before the Collector and Secretary (Appeals). He submitted that the impugned orders are without authority and misconceived as well as the proceedings are hit by inordinate delay and, therefore, the orders deserve to be set aside. 9. Mr. Mehta raised another relevant and important submission. He submitted that by any yard stick the petitioners are bona fide purchasers inasmuch as the petitioners purchased the land in question through public auction. 9. Mr. Mehta raised another relevant and important submission. He submitted that by any yard stick the petitioners are bona fide purchasers inasmuch as the petitioners purchased the land in question through public auction. He submitted that Respondent No. 4 herein was the original owner of the land in question who was declared debtor and defaulter in respect of Government dues. For recovery of government dues the land in question were put up for sell by auction and the petitioners purchased the land in question during the said auction. Mr. Mehta submitted that the said transaction was effected in 1980 and sale certificate was issued by the authorities and after about 14 years the Collector instituted the proceedings and, therefore, also the proceedings are unjust, unreasonable and deserve to be set aside. 10. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 tried to oppose the submissions on the ground that the auction was initiated and conducted with a view to making the petitioners agriculturists and that, therefore, the orders passed by the Collector and Secretary (Appeals) are justified and there is no error in the said orders. 11. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for petitioners opposed the contention by Respondent No. 4 on the ground that while it is true that respondent No. 4 has been party to the proceedings, however, in light of the facts of the case, Respondent No. 4 has no locus inasmuch as the Respondent No. 4 was declared debtor and defaulter and the land in question was sold by the Government for recovery of dues. Learned AGP Mr. Manan Mehta further submitted that Collector as well as Secretary (Appeals) have reached to the concurrent findings that the transaction was effected in breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act inasmuch as 2 persons/purchasers out of the 3 joint co-purchasers were non-agriculturists and that, therefore, the said transaction could not have been effected in favour of said 2 non-agriculturists. Learned AGP submitted that the orders are just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 12. Considering the submission of learned advocate for petitioners and Respondent No. 4 as well as learned AGP and orders in question and reply Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 4, it would be appropriate to deal with the petitioners' objection against Respondent No. 4. 13. It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 4 was original owner of the land in question. 13. It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 4 was original owner of the land in question. It is also not in dispute that the land in question was sold during auction and that the land in question was put up for sell in auction because Respondent No. 4 was declared debtor and defaulter for Government dues. For recovering Government dues the land was put up in sell for auction. 14. It is pertinent that respondent No. 4 has never challenged: (a) the decision declaring him as debtor and defaulter of Government dues. The said decision has attained finality; (b) likewise, the Respondent No. 4 also never challenged the auction process and/or finalization of sell by auction. The sell of land in question by process of auction has also attained finality. 15. In these circumstances and in this view of the matter, actually respondent No. 4 has locus to oppose the petition filed by the Petitioners against the order passed by the Collector and/or the Secretary's Order. 16. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that the proceedings in question came to be initiated by the Collector in exercise of suo motu powers and not at the request of any of the Respondents including Respondent No. 4 and that therefore also the respondents do not have any locus in the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner's against the orders passed by the Collector and Secretary (Appeals). The interest in land or the locus of Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 came to an end when the original owner (including the heirs) came to be declared debtor and defaulter or at least after sell by auction was completed. 17. Now, so far as the impugned orders are concerned, as mentioned above, the petitioners have assailed the orders mainly on 3 grounds mentioned hereinabove. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it has emerged that the petition can be disposed of on limited ground viz. the proceedings came to be initiated after inordinate and unreasonable delay. Therefore it would not be necessary to enter into other two contentions raised by the Petitioners with regard to Collector's authority to pass order in relation to the provisions under different Statute. 18. From the record it has emerged that the sale in respect of land in question was effected in 1980. Therefore it would not be necessary to enter into other two contentions raised by the Petitioners with regard to Collector's authority to pass order in relation to the provisions under different Statute. 18. From the record it has emerged that the sale in respect of land in question was effected in 1980. The transaction was recorded in village form No. 6 as Entry No. 1976 which is certified as back as in August, 1980 and that entry/transaction has never been challenged by any one, more particularly was not challenged until the Collector initiated suo motu proceedings in 1984 i.e. after 14 years. 19. In this view of the matter, when the decision and observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in case of The State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha & Ors. [ 1969 (2) SCC 187 ], in case of Bhaniben Makanbhai Tandel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [AIR 1991 Gujarat 184], in case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim [ (1997) 6 SCC 71 ], in case of Pune Municipal Corpn. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ (2007) 5 SCC 211 ] and the decision of this Court in case of Patel somabhai Devidas v. Dahyaji Somaji Thakor & Ors. [2010 (5) GLR 4152] and in case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2011 (3) GLR 98] are taken into account, it becomes clear that the proceedings which are instituted by the Collector after 14 years cannot be said to be initiated within reasonable time. The proceedings are hit by unreasonable and inordinate delay. 20. In light of the observation in above mentioned decisions, the said orders which came to be passed after inordinate delay cannot be sustained. Consequently, following order is passed: (a) For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. (b) Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside. (c) The Petition is allowed to that extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Partly Allowed