JUDGMENT P.P. Bhatt, J. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-society has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22/29.03.2006 passed by the Joint Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Dept., Ahmedabad and the order dated 05.12.2003 passed by the respondent No.2 with all consequential and incidental effects. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : 2.1. That the land bearing Survey No.68 situated at Village: Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad admeasuring 15884 sq. mtrs. was an agricultural land and in the year 1956 one entry being entry No.809 came to be made in the land record whereby the land in question was shown as new tenure land. In fact the land in question was ancestral property of Bhikhaji Maganji Thakor and in the land record prior to 1956 there was no mention that the land in question was a new tenure land and therefore, an application was made by the land owner to cancel the said entry showing that the land is a new tenure land and after considering the said application, the City Deputy Collector passed an order on 14.08.1992 cancelling the entry No.809 qua Survey No.68. That the T.P. Scheme No.1, Ahmedabad came to be implemented and the Survey No.68 was given Final Plot Nos.115 and 204. The Final Plot No.204 came to be declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and the Final Plot No.115 was given to the original land owner. That out of the said land of Final Plot No.115, the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 8679 sq. mtrs. from its original owner by way of registered Sale Deeds. The original land owner made an application on 20.08.1992 for converting the land from agricultural to non-agricultural and by order dated 28.08.1992, the land came to be converted into non-agricultural land. 2.2 That the petitioner herein is a registered Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No.68, Final Plot No.115 admeasuring 8679 sq. mtrs. situated at village Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad from its original owner Bhikhaji Maganji Thakor by way of registered Sale Deeds executed on 02.09.1992. 2.3 That an application was made to AUDA for granting permission to develop the land in question. mtrs. situated at village Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad from its original owner Bhikhaji Maganji Thakor by way of registered Sale Deeds executed on 02.09.1992. 2.3 That an application was made to AUDA for granting permission to develop the land in question. Thereafter the petitioner purchased the land in question from its original owner by way of registered Sale Deeds as stated above and on the basis of the said registered Sale Deeds the petitioner society's name came to be entered into the land record by entry Nos.3107, 3108 and 3109 on 05.09.1992 which came to be certified on 20.10.1992. The society thereafter put a revised plan before the authority for approval and after getting the approval of the same, the land was divided into 25 plots and the plots were alloted to the members. The members of the society constructed their houses on the plots of land alloted to them and they are residing there since so many years. The AUDA has granted permission to develop the land in question on 23.04.1996. 2.4 That to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the original land owner and a copy was also served on the petitioner-society on 16.04.2003 stating that the order dated 14.08.1992 passed by the Deputy Collector is to be taken in revision. The petitioner has filed a reply to the said show cause notice and has also submitted written arguments before the learned Collector. The original land owner was also made a party to the said proceeding, but the original land owner had expired on 08.03.1998, and therefore, no representation was made on behalf of the original land owners. The respondent No.2 passed an order on 05.12.2003 setting aside the order dated 14.08.1992 passed by the City Deputy Collector. The above stated show cause notice was issued under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code after a lapse of 11 years. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 05.12.2003 passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner approached the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat by way of filing R.T.S. Revision Application No.64/2003 and the said revision application came to be heard by the learned Joint Secretary (Appeals) and was rejected by order dated 22/29.03.2006. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 05.12.2003 passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner approached the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat by way of filing R.T.S. Revision Application No.64/2003 and the said revision application came to be heard by the learned Joint Secretary (Appeals) and was rejected by order dated 22/29.03.2006. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition mainly on the ground that the revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can be exercised within a reasonable time as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Hon'ble Court. 3. Heard the learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza appearing for the petitioner-society as well as learned AGP Mr. J. K. Shah appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza appearing for the petitioner-society submits that the petitioner-society purchased the land bearing Survey No.68, Final Plot No.115 admeasuring 8679 sq. mtrs. situated at village Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad from its original owner Bhikhaji Maganji Thakor by way of registered Sale Deeds executed on 02.09.1992. It is submitted that the land bearing Survey No.68 admeasuring 15884 sq. mtrs. was an agricultural land and in the year 1956 one entry being entry No.809 came to be made in the land record whereby the land in question was shown as new tenure land. In fact the land in question was ancestral property of Bhikhaji Maganji Thakor and in the land record prior to 1956 there was no mention that the land in question was a new tenure land and therefore, an application was made by the land owner to cancel the said entry showing that the land is a new tenure land and after considering the said application, the City Deputy Collector passed an order on 14.08.1992 cancelling the entry No.809 qua Survey No.68. The T.P. Scheme No.1, Ahmedabad came to be implemented and the Survey No.68 was given Final Plot Nos.115 and 204. It is further submitted that the Final Plot No.204 came to be declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and the Final Plot No.115 was given to the original land owner. It is further submitted that out of the said land of Final Plot No.115, the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 8679 sq. mtrs. It is further submitted that the Final Plot No.204 came to be declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and the Final Plot No.115 was given to the original land owner. It is further submitted that out of the said land of Final Plot No.115, the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 8679 sq. mtrs. from its original owner by way of registered Sale Deeds. The original land owner made an application on 20.08.1992 for converting the land from agricultural to non-agricultural and by order dated 28.08.1992, the land came to be converted into non-agricultural land. It is further submitted that an application was made to AUDA for granting permission to develop the land in question. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the land in question from its original owner by way of registered Sale Deed as stated above. On the basis of said registered Sale Deeds the petitioner-society's name came to be entered into the land record by entry Nos.3107, 3108 and 3109 on 05.09.1992, which came to be certified on 20.10.1992. The petitioner-society thereafter put a revised plan before the authority for approval and after getting the approval of the same, the land was divided into 25 plots and the plots were alloted to the members. The members of the petitioner-society have constructed their houses on the plots of land alloted to them and they are residing there. It is further submitted that to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the original land owner and a copy was also served on the society on 16.04.2003 (by mistake in said notice date is written as 16.04.2004) stating that the order dated 14.08.1992 passed by the Deputy Collector is to be taken in revision. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a reply to the said show cause notice and has also submitted written arguments before the learned Collector. It is further submitted that the original owner was also made a party to the said proceedings, but the original land had expired on 08.03.1998 and therefore, it appears that no representation was made on behalf of the original land owner. The respondent No.2 passed the order dated 05.12.2003 setting aside the order dated 14.08.1992 passed by the City Deputy Collector. The respondent No.2 passed the order dated 05.12.2003 setting aside the order dated 14.08.1992 passed by the City Deputy Collector. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order the petitioner approached the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat by way of R.T.S. Revision Application No.64 of 2033 and the said application came to be heard by the learned Joint Secretary (Appeals) and was rejected the same by order dated 22/29.03.2006. 4.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza further submits that the impugned order passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) as well as the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 05.12.2003 are illegal, unjust, improper and contrary to the settled position of law. It is submitted that the learned Collector has grossly erred in law in exercising the revisional jurisdiction by taking the order of Deputy Collector in revision after a period of 11 years. It is submitted that now it is well settled law that revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can be exercised within a reasonable time and has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Hon'ble Court the period of 11 years can never be said to be a reasonable period and hence, the initiation of proceeding against the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 14.08.1992 suffers from the vice of delay and latches and all the proceedings which are based on the show cause notice which was issued by the respondent No.2 on 16.04.2003 are required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the learned Collector has stated in show cause notice that revision can be made within a reasonable period only and that reasonable period is held to be one year by the Hon'ble High Court, but the learned Collector has issued the show cause notice after a lapse of 11 years. This clearly shows the total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent No.2 and hence, the order passed by the respondent No.2 is bad and illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 4.2 Learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza further submits that the authorities below have failed to appreciate that after passing the order by the City Deputy Collector dated 14.08.1992 there has been a sea change in the position of the land in question. 4.2 Learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza further submits that the authorities below have failed to appreciate that after passing the order by the City Deputy Collector dated 14.08.1992 there has been a sea change in the position of the land in question. It is further submitted that the land in question was converted into non-agricultural land and development permission was given by AUDA, the land in question was sold to the petitioner-society by way of registered Sale Deed and the society in turn has divided the land into plot and has alloted the same to its members and the members have constructed their house on the said piece of land and thus, equities are totally changed, in such circumstances the respondent authorities are estopped from taking any action by way of revision on equitable grounds also and hence, the order passed by respondent No.2 as well as the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) are required to be quashed and set aside. 4.3 Learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza further submits that the land in question was never a new tenure land and for the first time an entry was made on 02.06.1956 that the land in a new tenure land and the said entry was without any basis and on the application being made in the year 1991, the said entry was cancelled by the City Deputy Collector and thereafter the land was converted to non-agriculture land and after taking development permission, the land has been developed and the construction has been made and the members of the petitioner-society have spent all savings of their life and are residing with their families and therefore, if the impugned orders are not quashed and set aside, the members of the society will be ruined and will fact immense hardships and therefore, on the equitable ground also the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.4 Learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza further submits that the respondent authorities have committed an error in reaching to the conclusion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay order in favour of the Government in Special Leave Petition Nos.9329 and 9330 of 2001. 4.4 Learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza further submits that the respondent authorities have committed an error in reaching to the conclusion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay order in favour of the Government in Special Leave Petition Nos.9329 and 9330 of 2001. It is further submitted that the petitioner has inquired regarding the status of the above stated Special Leave Petitions and as per information of the petitioner no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the impugned orders are based on conjectures and surmises and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the above stated Special Leave Petitions are not pertaining to the land in question and has noting to do with the present case and therefore, the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can be exercised within a reasonable time only. It is further submitted that in the case, State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors., (1969) AIR SC 1297 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a question of exercising of revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code held that the powers of revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code must be exercised within a reasonable time eve though there is no period of limitation prescribed under the said provision. The above stated judgment has been followed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Rajul Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1985) 2 GLR 1187 , ad has held that the exercise of power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code after lapse of about five and half year and after the petitioner had taken over the possession of the land and put up construction thereon and alloted flat to its members is unjust and illegal. It is further submitted that in the present case, the respondent authorities have exercised their powers after a lapse of 11 years and during that period, the land was sold to the petitioner society and the petitioner society has alloted the plots of land to the members and they have constructed their houses and they are residing there with their families since last so many years. In the circumstances, as per the well settled position of law, the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4.5 It is further submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza that as one petition being Special Civil Application No.7878 of 1997 was filed by the land owner of survey no.69 and in the said petition notices were issued to the Collector and other authorities. A reference was made and copy of the order dated 14.08.1992 was placed on record, and therefore, the said order came to the knowledge of the Collector at that time also, but at that time also the Collector has not taken the order dated 14.08.1992 in revision and after a long period of 11 years, the respondent No.2 issued the show cause notice on 16.04.2003 and initiated the proceeding of revision of the order dated 14.08.1992. From the above stated fact it is clear that the learned Collector has accepted the fact that the land in question was old tenure land and therefore, he is estopped from taking in revision the order passed by the City Deputy Collector and hence, the whole proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.6. Learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza has placed reliance upon the following case laws : (i) Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (1971) GLR 156; (ii) State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors., (1969) GLR 992; (iii) State of Gujarat v. Pravinbhai Bhailalbhai Gor, (2000) 3 GLR 2168 ; (iv) Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera v. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State and Ors., (2011) 1 GLH 432 ; (v) Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Anr. v. D. Narsing Rao and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 695 . 5. Learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah appearing for the respondent-State while opposing the present petition and referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, submits that the land bearing Survey No.68 of village Ghatlodiya, Dist. v. D. Narsing Rao and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 695 . 5. Learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah appearing for the respondent-State while opposing the present petition and referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, submits that the land bearing Survey No.68 of village Ghatlodiya, Dist. Ahmedabad was running in the revenue record in the name of Bhikhaji Maganji Thakor on new tenure. The entry No.809 was recorded in village from No.6 qua the same. The said entry was recorded in the revenue record on 02.06.1956. It is submitted that for the first time an application came to be made by said Bhikhaji Maganji on 10.11.1991 for deleting the endorsement regarding "new tenure" from the said entry. The said endorsement had remained on record for the period of 35 years and there was no challenge to the said endorsement. It is submitted that the City Deputy Collector vide order dated 14.08.1992 cancelled the entry No.809. Having considered the fact that the entry No.809 came to be made in the year 1956 and had remained on record upto 1991, the respondent No.2 thought it fit to take the order of the Deputy Collector dated 14.08.1992 in Suo-Motu Revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and a notice as regards the same was issued by the respondent No.2 on 16.04.2003 and after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 vide order dated 05.12.2003 quashed and set aside the order dated 14.08.1992 passed by the City Deputy Collector. It is further submitted that upon verification of the record it appears that the land in question was granted to one Ugrabhaiji vide order dated 13.11.1911 as heir of Bhaiji Vera upon his demise. The said order was recorded in the revenue records as the land in question was running in the name of said Ugrabhaiji in the revenue records from 1916/1917 to 1922/1923. Thus, the land in question is a new tenure land and therefore, the action of the Deputy Collector of cancelling the entry No.809 was incorrect on the facts as well as law, and therefore, the same was rightly quashed and set aside by the respondent No.2. Thus, the land in question is a new tenure land and therefore, the action of the Deputy Collector of cancelling the entry No.809 was incorrect on the facts as well as law, and therefore, the same was rightly quashed and set aside by the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to content that since the respondent No.2 has exercised the powers under Section 211 of the Code after lapse of period of 11 years, the action is barred by delay and latches. It is further submitted that from the discussion made hereinabove it becomes clear that the land was a new tenure land from the very beginning and therefore, the order of the Deputy Collector cancelling the said entry was non-est in the eye of law and therefore, it could be cnacelled at any point of time. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition as the land in question is of new tenure land and it could not have been transferred in any manner whatsoever without prior permission of the respondent No.2 as per the provisions of law. Despite the same, a sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner on 02.09.1992. The said sale deed in non-est. Therefore, in view of the above, the present petition may be dismissed. 6. In response to the above submission made by the learned AGP, learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza submits that the entry No.809 qua survey No.68 showing the land as new tenure land came to be cancelled by the Deputy Collector by order dated 14.08.1992. The above stated order came to be taken in suo-motu revision by the respondent No.2 under Section 211 after 11 years. It is submitted that it was against the well settled law that the order can be taken in revision within reasonable time only and a period of 11 years can not be said to be reasonable by any stretch of imagination. It is submitted that it was against the well settled law that the order can be taken in revision within reasonable time only and a period of 11 years can not be said to be reasonable by any stretch of imagination. It is further submitted that pertaining to the said entry No.809 qua survey No.69 showing that the land is a new tenure land, a petition being Special Civil Application No.7878 of 1998 was filed by the owner of the said land and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the petition by order dated 04.02.1997 quashing the entry no.809 which says that the lands are new tenure lands. The above stated order was taken in appeal by the respondent by filing LPA No.626 of 1997 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the said appeal by order dated 24.08.2000. It is further submitted that the respondent-State filed Civil Appeal Nos. 2323-2324 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to dismiss the said appeals on 08.04.2009. 7. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it become clear from the material placed on record that the power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has been exercised after a lapse of 11 years. There are catena of judgments, whereby it has been held that the power of revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code must be exercised within a reasonable time. The period of seven years has been considered unreasonable by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwanji Bawanji Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (1971) GLR 156. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors., (1969) GLR 992 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the power of revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code must be exercised within a reasonable time. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Pravinbhai Bhailalbhai Gor, (2000) 3 GLR 2168 , the Devision Bench of this Court has held that show-cause notice in exercise of revisional powers under Rule 108(6) issued 8 years after the mutation seeking to cancel the entry - Exercise of revisional powers not being within reasonable time, held, show-cause notice rightly quashed by the single Judge. In the case of Labhubhai Valjibhai Gajera v. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State and Ors., (2011) 1 GLH 432 the Devision Bench of this Court has held that revenue authorities issued notice in the year 2006 under the Fragmentation Act and declared the holding of the appellant as contrary to Section 84C of the Act, held, proceedings being initiated by the Revenue Authorities after a delay of more than 3 years, the same were vitiated by vice of the delay and therefore quashed and set aside. In the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Anr. v. D. Narsing Rao and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 695 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Para 31 observed as under: "31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised and fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority." 8. Apart from the above legal position, it is also required to be taken into consideration that prior to the initiation of suo-motu proceedings by the respondent No.2-Collector after a period of 11 years, and prior to issuance of notice dated 16/04/2003, T.P. Scheme No.1 came to be implemented and the said land of Survey No. 68 was allotted Final Plot Nos. 115 and 204. The Final Plot No. 204 came to be declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and Final Plot No. 115 was given to the original land owner. 115 and 204. The Final Plot No. 204 came to be declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and Final Plot No. 115 was given to the original land owner. Thereafter, petitioner society has purchased the said land from the original land owner and obtained requisite permissions from the Competent Authorities and divided the said land into 25 plots and plots were allotted to the members of the petitioner society. The members have constructed their houses on the said plots and residing there since long years. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.2- Collector while passing the order dated 05/12/2003 has not properly appreciated the above facts on record and without application of mind passed the said order dated 05/12/2003 setting aside the order dated 14/08/1992, which was passed by the Deputy Collector 11 years ago. Similarly, while passing order dated 22/29.03.2006, the Joint Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department has also committed the same error. As such, there is apparent error on the face of the record of the orders dated 22/29.03.2006 and 05/12/2003. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as settled proposition of law, it becomes ample clear that in the instant case, the revisional power under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has been exercised by the respondent No.2 after a period of 11 years, and therefore, the impugned orders passed deserves to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, while passing the order dated 05/12/2003, the respondent No.2-Collector has not taken into consideration material on record which clearly showing implementation of T.P. Scheme No.1 and permissions granted by the Competent Authorities in favour of the petitioner society. Therefore, there is an apparent error on the face of the record therefore, also the order dated 22/29.03.2006 and order dated 05/12/2003, passed by the Joint Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and the respondent No.2-Collector, respectively, deserves to be quash and set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 22/29.03.2006 passed by the Joint Secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad and the order dated 05.12.2003 passed by the respondent No.2 are hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential and incidental effects. 10. The present petition is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.