JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.B. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned AGP. 2. In present petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that: "7(A) To issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the order at Annexure A passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 11.8.2000." 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 21.7.2000/11.8.2000 passed by Deputy Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No. 24 of 1997 whereby the Deputy Secretary partly allowed the revision application and directed that Entry No. 11679 should be cancelled and so far as Entry Nos. 5736 and 6836 are concerned, after inquiry if any correction is necessary, the same may be mutated. 3.1 By the impugned order, the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) further directed that an inquiry be initiated to determine as to whether Mr. Mohmmed Mustafa Malek who purchased the land in question was agriculturist or not. 4. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from submissions by learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondents that one Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa purchased parcel of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 72 at Ankleshwar somewhere in October 1982. 4.1 A sale deed was executed and the said deed was registered and thereafter the transaction was entered into on revenue record at Entry No. 6813. 4.2 On 31.1.1994, said Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa died and thereafter the names of heirs/legal representatives of said Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa were entered into on 9.3.1995 at Entry No. 11679. 4.3 One Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh felt aggrieved by the said Entry No. 11679 and therefore, he submitted an application to cancel the said Entry No. 11679 whereby the names of heirs/legal representatives of Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa were entered into in respect of land bearing Survey No. 72 paiki. 5. At this stage, it is relevant and necessary to mention that the said applicant did not raise any objection against Entry No. 7316 which was mutated in revenue record. 5.1 Thus, the challenge was raised only against Entry No. 11679 whereby the names of heirs of Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa came to be entered into revenue records. The application filed by said Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1996. 5.1 Thus, the challenge was raised only against Entry No. 11679 whereby the names of heirs of Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa came to be entered into revenue records. The application filed by said Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.10.1996. 5.2 Feeling aggrieved by the said order, said Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh filed revision application before the Secretary (Appeals) which was registered as Revision Application No. 24 of 1997. 6. Said applicant Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh challenged the said Entry No. 11679 on the ground that Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa was not agriculturist and that he got the land transferred illegally and that the entry entering names of heirs, i.e. Entry No. 11679 is illegal and incorrect and should be cancelled. He also contended that actually, the authority should have initiated suo motu proceedings against the said entry. 6.1 The Deputy Secretary (Appeals) adjudicated the said application and vide order dated 21.7.2000/11.8.2000 partly allowed the revision application with above mentioned directions. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have taken out this petition. 7. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Secretary (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Collector was right and justified in dismissing the application filed by said Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh inasmuch as the said grievance was raised after almost 12 years. He further submitted that even otherwise, the direction by the Secretary (Appeals) to the competent authority to examine the issue as to whether Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa was agriculturist or not is unjustified inasmuch as after such inordinate delay, such issue does not deserve to be raised and entertained and that applicant Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh never challenged the entry whereby the transaction executed in 1982 came to be recorded and certified. He also submitted that neither any suo motu proceedings with regard to the entry recording sale transaction has been initiated by the authority nor said Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh has raised any grievance against the entry. The learned advocate also submitted that such direction could not have been passed. 8. Mr. Mehta, learned AGP submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the Secretary so far as the direction to examine propriety and correctness of Entry No. 11679 inasmuch as the authority has directed that correctness of the entry with regard to heirs may be examined. 8. Mr. Mehta, learned AGP submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the Secretary so far as the direction to examine propriety and correctness of Entry No. 11679 inasmuch as the authority has directed that correctness of the entry with regard to heirs may be examined. According to learned AGP, the said direction is neither erroneous nor arbitrary and therefore, the same may not be interfered with. However, with regard to the second direction, i.e. to examine the issue as to whether Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa was agriculturist or not, Mr. Mehta, learned AGP could not dispute the petitioners' contention raised on ground of inordinate delay as well as on the ground that the entry whereby transaction entered into and executed by Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa was not under challenge and any suo motu proceedings have also not been instituted and therefore, the said direction is unwarranted. 9. I have considered rival submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP and I have also considered the material available on record including copy of Village Form No. 6, the order passed by the Collector and impugned order. 10. For sake of convenience, the petitioners' grievance with regard to second direction is addressed and dealt with before addressing the contention with regard to the direction to re-examine the details of Entry No. 11679. 11. It is not in dispute that said Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa, i.e. predecessor/father of present petitioners purchased the land bearing Survey No. 72 paiki in October 1982. 11.1 It is also not in dispute that the said transaction dated 5.10.1982 was recorded in the revenue records in January 1985 at Entry No. 6813. 11.2 It is also not in dispute that any authority at any point of time had not initiated any proceedings including suo motu proceedings in respect of or against Entry No. 6813 and/or the transaction executed by Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa in October 1982. 11.3 Actually, according to learned advocate for the petitioners, until now any proceeding in connection with the said sale transaction has never been initiated by any authority. 12. Not only this, even any other persons including said Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh had initiated any proceedings against Entry No. 11679 nor have they challenged the Entry No. 6813 and/or the transaction executed on 5.10.1982 by Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa on any ground whatsoever. 13. 12. Not only this, even any other persons including said Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh had initiated any proceedings against Entry No. 11679 nor have they challenged the Entry No. 6813 and/or the transaction executed on 5.10.1982 by Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa on any ground whatsoever. 13. Besides this, the said Entry No. 6813 and/or the transaction executed by Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa on 5.10.1982 was not the subject matter of the revision application before the Collector and/or subject matter of the revision application before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) and that, therefore, there was no occasion for the Deputy Secretary to pass any direction with regard to the said Entry No. 6813 and/or the transaction executed by Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa on any grounds including the ground that Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa was not agriculturist. 14. Furthermore, the said transaction was executed in October 1982 whereas Mr. Kamruddin Ahmedmiya Shaikh filed application raising dispute against Entry No. 11679 on 1.5.1996 i.e. after almost 14 years and the Deputy Secretary passed impugned direction and the order in July 2000. 14.1 Thus, the said order and direction are, even otherwise, hit by abnormal and inordinate delay inasmuch as in the interregnum i.e. from 1982 to July 2000 or from 1982 to May 1996, such grievance or dispute was never raised and even the authority did not initiate any suo motu proceedings. 14.2 In this view of the matter, there would not be any justification to pass such direction while adjudicating the revision application raising dispute to limited extent i.e. with reference to Entry No. 11679. 15. In light of the foregoing discussion and the reasons mentioned above, the said direction, i.e. direction to the competent authority to examine as to whether said Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa was agriculturist or not does not deserves to be set aside. 16. 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. [ 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 are hit by unreasonable and inordinate delay. 17. At this stage, it is relevant to note that it is not the case of the applicant or even of the authorities that the names which came to be entered into by virtue of Entry No. 11679 are not the heirs of deceased Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa and that, therefore, their names should not have been entered into in the revenue records. 17.1 The applicant/complainant is a third party who raised dispute. As mentioned above, any proceedings have not been instituted by the authority in exercise of suo motu power or otherwise whereas the third party raised grievance after inordinate delay of almost 14 years and that also in respect of Entry No. 11679 and not in respect of the transaction executed in 1982 and/or not in respect of the entry whereby the transaction was recorded. 18. Under the circumstances, the direction to re-examine the entry recording names of the heirs of deceased Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa is not justified. 18.1 However, from the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), it has emerged that on examination of the record, the Deputy Secretary noticed that the record does not contain any entry, i.e. Entry Nos. 5736 and 6836. Therefore, the Deputy Secretary considered it appropriate to direct that the concerned authority should verify as to whether the said two entries were ever recorded or not and/or whether they were certified or not. Under the circumstances, the said limited direction, i.e. to re-examine Entry Nos. 5736 and 6836 and determine as to whether the said entries were mutated in the revenue records or not or whether the said entries were certified or not, is not disturbed. 19. Under the circumstances, the said limited direction, i.e. to re-examine Entry Nos. 5736 and 6836 and determine as to whether the said entries were mutated in the revenue records or not or whether the said entries were certified or not, is not disturbed. 19. Consequently, following order is passed: (a) The direction to examine the issue as to whether the predecessor/father of present petitioners, i.e. Mr. Gulam Mohmmed Mustafa was agriculturist or not, is set aside for the reasons mentioned above; (b) So far as the order cancelling Entry No. 11679 is concerned, the said order is also set aside, however, with clarification that if upon verification of Entry Nos. 5736 and 6836 any irregularity is found, then it will be open to the concerned authority to make necessary modification after following prescribed procedure and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; (c) The direction to verify the correctness of Entry Nos. 5736 and 6836 is not disturbed. Consequently, the direction by the Deputy Secretary remanding the case to that limited extent, viz. verification of Entry Nos. 5736 and 6836 is also not disturbed. With the aforesaid clarifications and observations, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Partly Allowed