JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. By way of the present petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Additional Mamlatdar and ALT, Choryasi, in Tenancy Case No. 32 of 2009 as well as the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 210 of 2014. It is also prayed that this Court may hold that the restriction as contemplated under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is not applicable with respect to the subject land of the present petition. 2. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition and as the petition is pending since 2016, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that this petition be taken up and finally heard. Hence, Rule. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 11. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: 3.1 The petitioner is a Trust registered under the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950. The subject land is land bearing Survey No. 62 admeasuring about 1-52-77 (H-G-A) of Village Katargam, Taluka Surat City, District Surat. The subject land was originally belonged to one Lallubhai Bhimbhai. On the death of Lallubhai Bhimbhai, name of his daughter i.e. Kamuben was mutated as the owner of the subject land in the revenue record vide Entry No. 1082 on 11.04.1944. At the relevant point of time, proceedings were initiated under the erstwhile Tenancy Law and Prabhubhai Premabhai, who is the father of Somabhai Patel (predecessor of respondent Nos. 4 to 10), was declared to be a protected tenant in respect of the concerned parcels of land, pursuant to which, Entry No. 1233 was mutated in the revenue record. 3.2 It is stated that Prabhubhai Premabhai, the father of Somabhai Patel (predecessor of respondent Nos. 4 to 10) purchased the concerned parcels of land from Kamuben vide registered Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954. Entry No. 1600 was mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the said Sale Deed. It is also stated that the concerned parcels of land were purchased from Kamuben at a market price i.e. Rs. 7,301/-. 4 to 10) purchased the concerned parcels of land from Kamuben vide registered Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954. Entry No. 1600 was mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the said Sale Deed. It is also stated that the concerned parcels of land were purchased from Kamuben at a market price i.e. Rs. 7,301/-. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that Prabhubhai Premabhai did not become the owner of the concerned parcels of land with the help of any of the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act" for short). 3.3 On 23.09.1972, Prabhubhai Premabhai died. As he had executed a registered Will whereby the concerned parcels of land were bequeathed in favour of Somabhai Prabhubhai Patel (predecessor of respondent Nos. 4 to 10), he became the owner of the subject land. The petitioner agreed to purchase the concerned parcels of land from Somabhai Prabhubhai Patel vide an Agreement to Sell (with possession) executed on 03.03.2004 and, thereafter, the Sale Deed was executed on 23.04.2004 for the concerned parcels of land. It is, therefore, stated that the petitioner became the owner of the concerned parcels of land. Entry No. 9985 was mutated in the revenue record on 11.03.2008 on the basis of the registered Sale Deed. 3.4 It is also stated that the Collector, Surat, thereafter, addressed a letter dated 16.11.2009 to the Mamlatdar, whereby the Mamlatdar was asked to initiate proceedings under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act in respect of the concerned parcels of land, as Kamuben Lallubhai could not have executed a Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954 in favour of Prabhubhai Premabhai, the father of Somabhai Patel, on account of Prabhubhai Premabhai as having been declared to be a protected tenant. However, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated proceedings under Section 84C(2) of the Tenancy Act in respect of the concerned parcels of land, though the Collector had instructed him to initiate proceedings under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act. The petitioner as well as Somabhai Prabhubhai Patel submitted their replies before the said authority. Thereafter, on 30.04.2010, the Mamlatdar and ALT dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 84C(2) of the Tenancy Act subject to the payment of penalty of Re. 1/- to the State Government. Thus, the said authority exercised powers under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act. It was further held that on payment of Re. Thereafter, on 30.04.2010, the Mamlatdar and ALT dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 84C(2) of the Tenancy Act subject to the payment of penalty of Re. 1/- to the State Government. Thus, the said authority exercised powers under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act. It was further held that on payment of Re. 1/-, no restriction as contemplated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would apply in respect of the concerned parcels of land. It is the say of the petitioner that Re. 1/- was deposited with the State Government. 3.5 Thereafter, the Deputy Collector initiated suo-motu proceedings while exercising powers conferred upon him under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act against the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. The petitioner and Somabhai Prabhubhai Patel participated in the said proceedings and submitted their replies. The Deputy Collector, vide order dated 07.07.2014, quashed and set aside the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and applied restriction as contemplated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act to the concerned parcels of land after a lapse of fifty-five years. 3.6 The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said order passed by the Deputy Collector by filing a petition before this Court. The said petition was not pressed with a view to avail a remedy of filing a Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ('GRT' for short). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Revision Application before the GRT. The GRT dismissed Revision Application No. 210 of 2014 filed by the petitioner vide order dated 05.11.2015 and, thereby, confirmed the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this petition. 4. Heard Mr. D.C. Dave, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jigar M. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 11. As submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are formal parties and in fact, they have sold the land in question to the petitioner and, therefore, they have no interest in the land in question. 5. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 11. As submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are formal parties and in fact, they have sold the land in question to the petitioner and, therefore, they have no interest in the land in question. 5. Mr. D.C. Dave, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, would firstly contend that initiation of proceedings under Sections 84A and 84C(2) of the Tenancy Act in respect of the transaction of Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954 executed by Kamuben Lallubhai in favour of Prabhubhai Premabhai Patel, the father of Somabhai Prabhubhai Patel (predecessor of respondent Nos. 4 to 10) is required to be set aside on the ground that the proceedings were initiated after a gross delay of more than fifty-five years. In fact, the powers under the Tenancy Act are required to be exercised within reasonable time as per the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha reported AIR 1969 SC 1297 . 5.1. At this stage, it is further contended that the revenue authority was very much aware about the transaction of sale entered into by and between Prabhubhai Premabhai Patel, the father of Somabhai Patel (predecessor of respondent Nos. 4 to 10) and Kamuben Lallubhai in respect of the concerned parcels of land, which was executed on 23.06.1954 and Mutation Entry No. 1600 was posted in the revenue record on 10.07.1954, which was subsequently certified. 5.2. Learned Senior Advocate further contends that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that restriction as contemplated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would be applicable to those lands, which came to the tenants in proceedings initiated under certain provisions mentioned in Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. It is submitted that rational behind imposition of restriction under Section 43 of the Act to the lands of the aforesaid nature is that the tenant would not derive any premium upon selling the lands for the aforesaid nature, which came to him at a price far below than the market price. It is submitted that rational behind imposition of restriction under Section 43 of the Act to the lands of the aforesaid nature is that the tenant would not derive any premium upon selling the lands for the aforesaid nature, which came to him at a price far below than the market price. It is pointed out that in the present case, Prabhubhai Premabhai Patel, the father of Somabhai Patel, did not acquire the parcels of land by virtue of initiation of any sort of proceedings under any of the provisions referred to in Section 43 of the Act against the original owner and in fact, he purchased the subject land at a market price from Kamuben by executing a registered Sale Deed. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon a judgment dated 05.10.2006 rendered by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Ramji Devji Rabari passed in Special Civil Application No. 9848 of 2003 and allied matters. 5.3. Learned Senior Advocate, thereafter, referred the provisions contained in Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act and, thereafter, contended that restriction referred in the said provisions was not applicable to the subject land inasmuch as conditions precedent for applying the said section were lacking. 5.4. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the Mamlatdar and ALT was justified in law by invoking powers under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act and imposing a fine of Re. 1/- for regularizing the transaction in question, as the condition precedent for invoking the said provision was satisfied. He has referred the provisions of Section 84A of the Tenancy Act. At this stage, it is also contended that provisions of Section 84C of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable, as in the facts of the present case, transfer in respect of the subject land was admittedly taken place prior to 1955. 5.5. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities be quashed and set aside and, thereby, this Court may declare that the restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act is not applicable to the subject land. 6. Per contra, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has opposed this petition and contended that no error is committed by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned orders. 6. Per contra, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has opposed this petition and contended that no error is committed by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned orders. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order and, thereafter, submitted that it is rightly observed that restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would be applicable to the subject land and, therefore, the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT have been rightly quashed and set aside by the Deputy Collector as well as the Tribunal. He further submits that the decision rendered by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, merely because, proceedings were initiated after a period of fifty-five years, such proceedings cannot be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay as the transaction was null and void. It is also contended that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Collector directing the Mamlatdar and ALT to initiate proceedings under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act. He, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, the following questions would arise for consideration of this Court. (a) Whether the Mamlatdar was justified in initiating the proceedings under Section 84C(2) of the Tenancy Act in respect of the Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954 after a period of fifty-five years from the date of sale transaction and, that too, in spite of the fact that the Collector had instructed the Mamlatdar to initiate proceedings under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act? (b) Whether the Deputy Collector was justified in imposing restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act in respect of the subject land, for which, Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954 was executed between the concerned parties and when the said Sale Deed was executed at a market price and not at the price determined by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings initiated under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act? 8. For deciding the aforesaid issues, relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act are required to be examined. 8. For deciding the aforesaid issues, relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act are required to be examined. Section 43 of the Tenancy Act provides as under: "Section 43: Restriction on transfer of land purchased or sold under this Act (1) No land or any interest there in purchased by a tenant under section 17B, 32, 32F, 32-I, 32-O, 32U, 43-1D or 88E or sold to any person under section 32P or 64 shall be transferred or shall be agreed by an instrument in writing to be transferred, by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment, without the previous sanction of the Collector and expect in consideration of payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine; and no such land or any interest, therein shall partitioned without the previous sanction of the Collector. (1A) The sanction under sub-section (1) shall be given by the Collector in such circumstances and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed by the State Government, (1AA) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for such tenant or a person to mortgage or create a charge on his interest in the land in favour of the State Government in consideration of loan advanced to him by the State Government under the Land Improvement Loans, Act, 1883 (19 of 1883), the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1884, (12 of 1884) or the Bombay Non-agriculturists' Loans Act, 1928 (Bom. III of 1928), as in force in the State of Gujarat, or in favour of a bank or co-operative society, and without prejudice to any other remedy open to the State Government, bank or cooperative society, as the case may be, in the event of his making default in payment of such loan in accordance with the terms on which such loan was granted, it shall be lawful for the State Government, bank or co-operative society, as the case may be, to cause his interest in the land to be attached and sold and the proceeds to be applied in payment of such loan. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, "bank" means- (a) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955); (b) any subsidiary bank as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959); (c) any corresponding new bank as defined in clause (d) of section 2 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970); (d) the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation, established under the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation Act, 1962 (10 of 1963); (1B) Nothing in sub-section (1) or (1AA) shall apply to land purchased under section 32, 32F, 32O, or 64 by a permanent tenant thereof, if prior to the purchase, the permanent tenant, by usage, custom, agreement or decree or order of a court, held a transfer right in the tenancy of the land. 4 (1C) The land to which sub-section (1) applies and for which no permission is required under sub-section (1) of Section 65-B of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Bom. V of 1879) for use of such land for a bonafide industrial purpose may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of this section, be sold without the previous sanction of the Collector under sub-section (1) but subject to payment of such amount as may be determined by the State Government under sub-section (1). (2) Any transfer or partition, or any agreement of transfer, of any land any interest therein in contravention of sub-section (i) ["or sub-section (1C)"] shall be in valid." 8.1. Section 63 of the Tenancy Act provides as under: "Section 63: Transfers to non-agriculturists barred (1) Save as provided in this Act,- (a) no sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or for recovery of arrears of land revenues or for sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue), gift, exchange or lease of any land or interest therein, or (b) no mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgagee, or "(c) no agreement made by an instrument in writing for the sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage of any land or interest therein. shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or who being an agriculturist cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as an owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant or who is not an agricultural labourer: Provided that the Collector or an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may grant permission for such sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage or for such agreement, on such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided further that no such permission shall be granted, where land is being sold to a person who is not an agriculturist for agricultural purpose, if the annual income of such person from other sources exceeds five thousand rupees. 11 "(1-A) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt from the provisions of sub-sec. (1), for the transfer; of any agricultural land to any public trust established for the charitable purpose and which is non-profitable in nature, for the use of such land in the field of health and education, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein." (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the sale, gift, exchange or lease, or the agreement for the sale, gift, exchange or lease, of a dwelling house or the site thereof or any land appurtenant to it in favour of an agricultural labourer or an artisan or a person carrying on any allied pursuit. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply or be deemed to have applied to a mortgage of any land or interest therein effected in favour of a co-operative society as security for the loan advanced by such society or any transfer declared to be a mortgage by a court under section 24 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1947 (Bom. XXVIII of 1947). (4) Nothing in section 63A shall apply to any sale made under sub-section (1)." 8.2. Section 64 of the Tenancy Act provides as under: "Section 64: Sale of agricultural land to particular person (1) Where a landlord intends to sell any land, he shall apply to the Tribunal for determining the reasonable price thereof. The Tribunal shall thereupon determine the reasonable price of the land in accordance with the provisions of section 63A. Section 64 of the Tenancy Act provides as under: "Section 64: Sale of agricultural land to particular person (1) Where a landlord intends to sell any land, he shall apply to the Tribunal for determining the reasonable price thereof. The Tribunal shall thereupon determine the reasonable price of the land in accordance with the provisions of section 63A. The Tribunal shall also direct that the price shall be payable either in lump sum, or in annual instalments not exceeding six carrying simple interest at 4 ½ percent, per annum: Provided that in the case of sale of the land in favour of a permanent tenant when he is in possession thereof, the price shall be at six times the annual rent. (2) After the Tribunal has determined the reasonable price, the landlord shall simultaneously in the prescribed manner make an offer- (a) in the case of agricultural land- (i) to the tenant in actual possession thereof, notwithstanding the fact that such land is a fragment, and (ii) to all persons and bodies mentioned in the priority list; (b) in the case of a dwelling house, or a site of a dwelling house or land appurtenant to such house when such dwelling house, site or land is not used or is not necessary to carry on agricultural operations in the adjoining lands- (i) to the tenant thereof; (ii) to the person residing in the village who is not in possession of any dwelling house: Provided that if there are more than one such person the offer shall be made to such person or persons and in such order of priority as the Collector may determine in this behalf having regard to the needs of the following persons, namely:- (i) an agricultural labourer, (ii) an artisan, (iii) a person carrying on an allied pursuit, (iv) any other person in the village. (3) The persons to whom such offers are made shall intimate to the landlord within one month from the date of receipt of the offer whether they are willing to purchase the land at the price fixed by the Tribunal. (3) The persons to whom such offers are made shall intimate to the landlord within one month from the date of receipt of the offer whether they are willing to purchase the land at the price fixed by the Tribunal. (4) (a) If only one person intimates to the landlord under sub-section (3) his willingness to accept the offer made to him by the landlord under sub-section (2), the landlord shall call upon such person by a notice in writing in the prescribed form to pay him the amount of the reasonable price determined by the Tribunal or to deposit the same with the Tribunal within one month or such further period as the landlord may consider reasonable from the date of receipt of the notice by such person. (b) If more than one person intimate to the landlord under sub-section (3) their willingness to accept the offers made to them by the landlord under sub-section (2), the landlord shall call upon by a notice in writing in the prescribed form the person having the highest priority in the order of priority given in sub-section (2) to pay him the amount of the reasonable price determined by the Tribunal or to deposit the same with the Tribunal within one month or such further period as the landlord may consider reasonable from the date of receipt of the notice by such person. (5) If the person to whom a notice is given by the landlord under sub-section (4) fails to pay the amount of the reasonable price to the landlord or to deposit the same with the Tribunal within the period referred to in sub-section (4) such person shall be deemed to be not willing to purchase the land and the landlord shall call upon the manner provided in sub-section (4) the person who stands next highest in the order of priority and who has intimated his willingness to the landlord under sub-section (3). (6) If any dispute arises under this section regarding- (a) the offer made by the landlord under sub-section (2), or (b) the notice given by the landlord uder sub-section (4) or (5) or (c) the payment or deposit of the reasonable price or (d) the execution of the sale deed, such dispute shall be decided by the Tribunal. (6) If any dispute arises under this section regarding- (a) the offer made by the landlord under sub-section (2), or (b) the notice given by the landlord uder sub-section (4) or (5) or (c) the payment or deposit of the reasonable price or (d) the execution of the sale deed, such dispute shall be decided by the Tribunal. (7)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section a landlord may after obtaining the previous permission of the Tribunal as provided in the next succeeding clause (b) sell any land notwithstanding the fact that such land is a fragment to the tenant in actual possession thereof at a price mutually agreed upon between him and the tenant subject to the provisions of section 63A. (b) The landlord shall make an application in writing to the Tribunal for permission to sell the land at such price. On receipt of the application, the Tribunal shall grant the permission if, on holding an inquiry, it is satisfied that the price has been agreed to voluntarily by the tenant. (8) Any sale made in contravention of this section shall be invalid. (9) If a tenant refuses or fails to purchase the land or a dwelling house offered to him under this section, and the land or the dwelling house, as the case may be, is sold to any other person under this section, the landlord shall be entitled to evict such tenant and put the purchaser in possession." 8.3. Section 84A of the Tenancy Act provides as under: "Section 84A: Validation of transfers made before appointed day (1) A transfer of any land in contravention of section 63 or 64 as it stood before the commencement of the Amending Act, 1955, made after the 28th day of December 1948 (when the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bom. LXVII of 1948), came into force) and before the 15th day of June 1955 shall not be declared to be invalid merely on the ground that such transfer was made in contravention of the said sections if the transferee pays to the State Government a penalty equal to one per cent of the consideration or Rs. LXVII of 1948), came into force) and before the 15th day of June 1955 shall not be declared to be invalid merely on the ground that such transfer was made in contravention of the said sections if the transferee pays to the State Government a penalty equal to one per cent of the consideration or Rs. 100, whichever is less: Provided that, if such transfer is made by the landlord, in favour of the tenant in actual possession, the penalty leviable in respect thereof shall be one rupee: Provided further that if any such transfer is made by the landlord in favour of any person other than the tenant in actual possession, and such transfer is made either after the unlawful eviction of such tenant, or results in the eviction of the tenant in actual possession, then such transfer shall not be deemed to be validated unless such tenant has failed to apply for the possession of the land under sub-section (1) of section 29 within two years from the date of his eviction from the land. (2) On payment of such penalty, the Mamlatdar shall issue a certificate to the transferee that such transfer is not invalid. (3) Where the transferee fails to pay the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) within such period as may be prescribed, the transfer shall be declared by the Mamlatdar to be invalid and thereupon the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (5) of section 84C shall apply: Provided that where the transfer was made in favour of the tenant nothing in this sub-section shall apply to such transfer, if the tenant pays the penalty even after the expiry of the period prescribed for such payment but before the end of the 31st March 1966." 8.4. Section 84C of the Tenancy Act provides as under: "Section 84C: Disposal of land, transfer or acquisition of which is invalid Where in respect of the transfer or acquisition of any land made on or after the commencement of the amending Act, 1955, the Mamlatdar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of this Act, the Mamlatdar shall issue a notice and hold an inquiry as provided for in section 84B and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is or is not invalid. (2) If after holding such inquiry, the Mamlatdar comes to a conclusion that the transfer or acquisition of land to be invalid, he shall make an order declaring the transfer or acquisition to be invalid, unless the parties to such transfer or acquisition give an undertaking in writing that within a period of three months from such date as the Mamlatdar may fix, they shall restore the land along with the rights and interest therein to the position in which it was immediately before the transfer or acquisition, and the land is so restored within that period: Provided that where the transfer of land was made by the landlord to the tenant of the land and the area of the land so transferred together with the area of other land, if any, cultivated personally by the tenant did not exceed the ceiling area, the Mamlatdar shall not declare such transfer to be invalid- (i) if the amount received by the landlord as the price of the land is equal to or less than the reasonable price determine under section 63-A and the transferee pays to the State Government a penalty equal to Rs. 1 within such period not exceeding three months as the Mamlatdar may fix; (ii) if the amount received by the landlord as the price of the land is in excess of the reasonable price determined under section 63A and the transferor as well as the transferee pays to the State Government each a penalty equal to one-tenth of the reasonable price within such period as may be fixed by the Mamlatdar. (3) On the declaration made by the Mamlatdar under sub-section (2),- (a) the land shall be deemed to vest in the State Government, free from all encumbrances lawfully subsisting thereon on the date of such vesting, and shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (4); the encumbrances shall be paid out of the occupancy price in the manner provided in section 32Q for the payment of encumbrances out of the purchase price of the sale of land but the right of the holder of such encumbrances to proceed against the person liable, for the enforcement of his right in any other manner, shall not be affected. (b) the amount which was received by the transferor as the price of the land shall be deemed to have been forfeited to the State Government and it shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue; and (c) the Mamlatdar shall, in accordance with the provisions of section 63A determine the reasonable price of the land. (4) After determining the reasonable price, the Mamlatdar shall grant the land on new and impartible tenure and on payment of occupancy price equal to the reasonable price determined under sub-section (3) in the prescribed manner in the following order of priority:- (i) the tenant in actual possession of the land; (ii) the persons or bodies in the order given in the priority list: Provided that where the transfer of land was made by the landlord to the tenant of the land and the area of the land so transferred together with the area of the land, if any, cultivated personally by the tenant did not exceed the ceiling area then- (i) if the amount received by the transferor as the price of the land is equal to or less than the reasonable price, the amount forfeited under sub-section (3) shall be returned to the transferor and the land restored the transferee on payment of a penalty of rupee one in each case; and (ii) if the amount received by the transferor as the price of the land is in excess of the reasonable price, the Mamlatdar shall grant the land to the transferee on new and impartible tenure and on payment of occupancy price equal to one-tenth of the reasonable price and out of the amount forfeited under sub-section (3), the transferor shall be paid back an amount equal to nine-tenths of the reasonable price. (5) The amount of the occupancy price realised under sub-section (4) shall, subject to the payment as aforesaid of any encumbrances subsisting on the land, be credited to the State Government: Provided that where the acquisition of any excess land was on account of a gift or bequest, the amount of the occupancy price realised under sub-section (4) in respect of such land shall, subject to the payment of any encumbrances subsisting thereon, be paid to the donee or legatee in whose possession the land had passed on account of such acquisition. Explanation-For the purposes of this section "new and impartible tenure" means the tenure of occupancy which is non-transferable and non-partible without the previous sanction of the Collector." 9. At this stage, once again, this Court would like to refer the relevant facts of the present case. 10. Lallubhai Bhimbhai was the original owner of the subject land and after his death, name of his daughter Kamuben was mutated in the revenue record on 11.04.1944. Prabhubhai Premabhai was declared to be a protected tenant in respect of the concerned parcels of land. Necessary entry was mutated in the revenue record. Said Prabhubhai Premabhai purchased the subject land from Kamuben after executing the registered Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954 after making payment of consideration at a market price. At this stage, it is required to be noted that it is not the case of the respondent authorities that Prabhubhai Premabhai purchased the subject land as per the price determined by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings initiated under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. It is also not in dispute that no proceedings under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act were initiated at any point of time in respect of the subject land. After the death of Prabhubhai Premabhai, his son Somabhai Prabhubhai, became the owner of the subject land as per the registered Will executed by Prabhubhai Premabhai. The petitioner purchased the subject land by executing the registered Sale Deed dated 23.04.2004 and the petitioner is, therefore, a bonafide purchaser of the subject land. Necessary entry was also mutated in the revenue record. 11. It is also reflected from the record that the Collector, for the first time, on 16.11.2009 instructed the Mamlatdar to initiate proceedings under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act with respect to the subject land. Though specific instruction was given by the Collector to initiate proceedings under Section 84A of the Tenancy Act, the Mamlatdar initiated proceedings under Section 84C(2) of the Tenancy Act by issuing notice to the petitioner and Somabhai Prabhubhai. Ultimately, the Mamlatdar passed an order on 30.04.2010 realising that the petitioner is required to pay a fine of Re. 1/- as per the provisions contained in Section 84A of the Tenancy Act and no restriction as contemplated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would apply to the subject land. Ultimately, the Mamlatdar passed an order on 30.04.2010 realising that the petitioner is required to pay a fine of Re. 1/- as per the provisions contained in Section 84A of the Tenancy Act and no restriction as contemplated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would apply to the subject land. The said order was taken into suo-motu proceedings under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act and the Dy. Collector set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and the order of the Dy. Collector was confirmed by the GRT in the Revision Application filed by the petitioner. 12. Thus, from the aforesaid factual matrix of the present case, it is revealed that the Sale Deed was executed between the concerned parties in the year 1954 and, therefore, restriction contained in Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable to the subject land. At this stage, provisions contained in Section 43(1) of the Act is required to be kept in mind. From the said provision, it is clear that restriction as contemplated under the said provisions would apply in respect of any parcels of land where the said parcels of land were purchased by any person with the help of any of the provisions referred to in the said section i.e. Sections 32, 32F, 32I, 32O, 32U, 43-1D or 88E or Section 32P or 64. At this stage, once again the facts of the present case are required to be recalled. Prabhubhai Premabhai, the father of Somabhai Patel, did not acquire the concerned parcels of land with the help of any of the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, this Court is of the view that restriction as contemplated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act could not have been held applicable to the concerned parcels of land. 13. At this stage, if the provisions contained in Section 84C of the Tenancy Act is carefully examined, it would be revealed that the proceedings under the said provision can be initiated only in respect of those transfers or acquisitions made after the commencement of the Amending Act of 1955. In the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the transfer in respect of the concerned parcels of land having taken place prior to 1955, no proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act could have been initiated. 14. In the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the transfer in respect of the concerned parcels of land having taken place prior to 1955, no proceedings under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act could have been initiated. 14. From the facts discussed hereinabove, it is revealed that for the registered Sale Deed, which was executed in the year 1954, the proceedings were initiated by the concerned Mamlatdar as per the instructions given by the Collector after a period of fifty-five years and even the order passed by the Mamlatdar is now set aside by the Dy. Collector while exercising suo-motu powers under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act. Thus, when the proceedings were initiated after a period of more than fifty-five years, subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Mamlatdar are required to be set aside on the ground of gross delay in initiation of the proceedings. 15. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Natha (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in Paragraphs-11 and 12 as under: "11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under s. 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under s. 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised. 12. It seems to us that s. 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under, s. 211. Under s. 65 of the Code if the Collector does not inform the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading ss. 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. Reading ss. 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case the Commissioner set aside the order of the 'Collector on October 12, 1961, i.e. more than a year after the order, and it seems to us that this order was passed too late." 16. In the case of Shambhuram Videshiram Morya Vs. State of Gujarat Through Secretary (Appeals) reported in 2012(1) GLR 665 , the Division Bench of this Court has held in Paragraphs-5 and 7 as under: "5. For the first time, in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in 1969 GLR 992 (SC), the Supreme Court held that powers under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (for short, 'the Code') have to be exercised within reasonable time and what would be a reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each case and the nature of the impugned order. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghav Natha (supra) was constrained with the exercise of revisional powers under Sec. 211 of the Code. Section 211 of the Code prescribes no period of limitation for exercise of powers thereunder. The concept of reasonable time qua Sec. 211 of the Code has been applied to the powers exercised by the authorities, inter alia, under Sec. 84C of the Tenancy Act in several rulings of the Apex Court as well as this High Court in various matters. 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. It becomes clear from the language of the aforesaid statutory provision that any invalid transaction will have to be decided or declared invalid. It would thus mean that an invalid transaction per se may be invalid, but it will not be invalid unless it is decided or declared to be so. It has to be invalidated. It thus becomes clear that an invalid transaction is made equivalent to a voidable transaction and not a void transaction. It is a trite principle of law to say that a voidable transaction remains valid till it is avoided, annulled or invalidated. It has to be invalidated. It thus becomes clear that an invalid transaction is made equivalent to a voidable transaction and not a void transaction. It is a trite principle of law to say that a voidable transaction remains valid till it is avoided, annulled or invalidated. Even at the cost of repetition, I reiterate that the language of Sec. 83A of the Act has likened an invalid transaction to a voidable transaction. 14. In order to annul, avoid or invalidate a voidable transaction, powers for the purpose will have to be exercised within reasonable time. The aforesaid rulings of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Somabhai Nai (supra) and in the case of Koli Nagjibhai Varjan (supra) will not be applicable in the instant case as they were dealing with void transactions and not voidable transactions." 17. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Ramji Devji Rabari (supra), this Court has observed in Paragraphs-6 to 9 as under: "6. The contention raised on behalf of the State Government by Mr. Gori, learned AGP is that even if the tenant in respect of whom the proceedings are pending has purchased the land from the landlord by Registered Sale Deed, the restriction under Sec. 43 of the Act would apply and therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the said aspects. In support of the submission, the learned AGP relied upon the Government circular/resolution dated 16.03.1959 issued by the Government of Bombay clarifying the position that as per the provisions of Sec. 64 of the Act, the transfer is invalid. However, such transfer can be regularised on imposition of fine, but even if such transfers are regularised by collecting fine, the restriction under Sec. 43 of the Act to the land in question would continue to apply and therefore, the submission of the learned AGP is that is Sec. 43 of the Act applies of the restricted tenure. It is submitted that if the purchaser wants to transfer the property to any person, the requisite permission would be necessary and the premium may also be required to be paid to the Government and therefore, as the aforesaid aspects are not considered by the Tribunal, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. There is no dispute on the point that the land held by vendor/original holder was of unrestricted tenure/old tenure. 7. There is no dispute on the point that the land held by vendor/original holder was of unrestricted tenure/old tenure. It is true that in the revenue record of village Form No. 7 & 12, the name of the purchaser in the year 1961, 1962 was shown as that of cultivator. However the pertinent aspect is that, before the tenancy proceedings are initiated, the purchaser, who was shown as a cultivator and subsequently in the Government proceedings was described as tenant, has purchased the land by Registered Sale Deed dated 04.05.1961. It appears that the tenancy proceedings are initiated in the year 1967 being Tenancy Case No. 16/67. Therefore, as such, if the transfer has already been effected before the tenancy proceedings are initiated, it would be a case of transfer simplicitor of a land by the vendor to the purchaser and consequently, the purchaser will get all rights as that were held by the vendor, which would mean that the transfer of the land as unrestricted tenure. 8. Even if it is considered that the father of the purchaser was shown as cultivator even prior to 1960-1961 and could be said as tenant of the land in question, which was held by the vendor, then also, by the provisions of Sec. 64 of the Act, it cannot be said that the sale by the landholder of the land in question is completely banned. Sec. 64 of the Act provides for the sale of the land in favour of permanent tenant and other tenant and the manner and method of fixing of price is provided. Sub-section (7) also provides for enabling the landholder to sell any land to the tenant in actual possession at a price mutually agreed between him and the tenant, subject to the provisions of Sec. 63A. If such an application is made, it has been provided that the Tribunal shall grant permission, if it is satisfied that the price has been agreed voluntarily by the tenant. Sub-section (8) provides that any sale made in contravention of this Section shall be invalid. If such an application is made, it has been provided that the Tribunal shall grant permission, if it is satisfied that the price has been agreed voluntarily by the tenant. Sub-section (8) provides that any sale made in contravention of this Section shall be invalid. The object of the Act is to confer benefit upon the tenant who is actually cultivating the land and Sec. 64 including sub-Section (7) and (8) are essentially to see that the rights of the tenants are protected and he may not be subjected to compulsion to purchase the land at a price for which, he has not voluntarily agreed. It appears that with a view to see that the landholder may not be in a position to sell the land frustrating the rights of the tenant over the land, sub-Section (8) provides for sale in contravention to Sec. 64 as invalid, but thereby, it cannot be said that if it is a voluntary sale entered into by the landholder in favour of the tenant without taking benefit of the Act, the rights which may be acquired by the tenant shall be subject to the restriction under Sec. 43 of the Act inspite of the fact that the landholder who transferred the land was holding the land as unrestricted tenant. The possession of the land acquired by the tenant under the statute by fixation of price and the sale by the Mamlatdar and ALT cannot be equated with the position of the person, who may be in revenue record as tenant after having purchased the land from the landholder by paying full consideration/price of the land and the landholder having voluntarily transferred the land in favour of such persons. 9. In the present case, the additional circumstance, which has been rightly recorded by the Tribunal is that, even in the proceedings of the Tenancy Case No. 16/67, the transaction of sale is held to be bonafide and therefore, it is not in any case with a view to frustrate the provisions of the Act. If the transaction is held to be bonafide, then as per the provisions of the Transfer of Properties Act, the purchaser will acquire all rights as held by the vendor over the land in question. If the transaction is held to be bonafide, then as per the provisions of the Transfer of Properties Act, the purchaser will acquire all rights as held by the vendor over the land in question. If such an analogy is applied in the present case, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the land, which is purchased by the purchaser under the Registered Sale Deed, which is held to be bonafide in the Tenancy Case proceedings, would not be subject to the restrictions under Sec. 43 of the Act." 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, if the facts as discussed hereinabove are examined, this Court is of the view that there is a gross delay of more than fifty-five years in initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are required to be set aside. Further, when Prabhubhai Premabhai Patel, the father of Somabhai Patel, purchased the subject land vide registered Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954 after paying the amount of consideration at a market price, and not at the price determined by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings initiated under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, answers to the questions referred above in Paragraph-7(a) and (b) are as under: (A) The Mamlatdar was not justified in initiating proceedings under Section 84C(2) of the Tenancy Act in respect of the Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954 executed by and between Prabhubhai Premabhai, the father of Somabhai Patel and Kamuben Lallubhai, after a period of fifty-five years, from the sale transaction and, therefore, the orders passed by the respondent authorities are required to be set aside on the ground of delay. (B) The Dy. Collector was not justified in imposing restriction under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act in respect of the subject land as registered Sale Deed dated 23.06.1954 was executed after making payment of market price to the concerned seller and not at the price determined by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Additional Mamlatdar and ALT, Choryasi, in Tenancy Case No. 32 of 2009 as well as the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 210 of 2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.