JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition, has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd July, 2001 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.B.A.156/1992 as well as the order dated 15th April, 1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur, in Ganot Appeal: 46 of 1990 and also the order dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT (Tenant) Deesa. Vide the order dated 2nd July, 2001 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.156 of 1992, the Tribunal rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners and thus, the order dated 15th July, 1991 as well as the order dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur and Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa respectively stood confirmed. 2. Tersely stated are the facts: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioners (now deceased) that the petitioners are agriculturists and are residing at village Badargadh. It is the further case of the petitioners that Alimahmmad Valibhai Muman i.e. the respondent No.3 (now deceased) was granted land bearing survey number 1020, block number 17(A), admeasuring 5 acres 29 gunthas of village Kharodiya, Taluka Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”) under the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenancy Act”). 2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 i.e. Alimammed Valibhai Muman was the eldest son of the grandfather of the petitioners; however, the land in question was being cultivated by the grandfather of the petitioners, partition took place and as per the said partition/division, land in question came to the share of the petitioners. The said arrangement was mutated in the Village Form No.VI vide entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have incurred expenditure by constructing bore-well as well as had spent a huge amount for making the land in question cultivable. It is also the case of the petitioners that the land in question is the only source of livelihood for the petitioners and the family members of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have incurred expenditure by constructing bore-well as well as had spent a huge amount for making the land in question cultivable. It is also the case of the petitioners that the land in question is the only source of livelihood for the petitioners and the family members of the petitioners. 2.3 Somewhere in the year 1981, team of Right of Records had submitted a proposal to the Office of the Deputy Collector, Palanpur to look into the veracity of the entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971. Apropos the said proposal, the Deputy Collector, Palanpur passed an order dated 22nd May, 1981 whereby, the Deputy Collector, Palanpur cancelled the grant of the land in question and also ordered forfeiture and vesting of the land in question in the State Government. 2.4 The order dated 22nd May, 1981, was challenged by the petitioners before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat who, vide his order dated 22nd October, 1984, while allowing the revision application, remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa to decide the issue afresh. The Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat was of the opinion that Deputy Collector, Palanpur, before passing the order, ought to have observed the provisions of section 84-C of the Tenancy Act by issuing the notice to the parties and only after hearing, that the order could have been passed. The Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat was of the opinion that the Deputy Collector, Palanpur having not followed the provisions of section 84-C, the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur was bad in law. The Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat was also of the opinion that the Deputy Collector, Palanpur passed the order only on the basis of the proposal of the team of Right of Records which could not have been done. Thus, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat while allowing the revision application, remitted the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa to decide it afresh. 2.5 Upon remand, the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa vide his order dated 17th January, 1989 came to the conclusion that there was no breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and withdrew the notice issued against the petitioners. 2.5 Upon remand, the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa vide his order dated 17th January, 1989 came to the conclusion that there was no breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and withdrew the notice issued against the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.3 Alimammad Valibhai Muman challenged the said order before the Deputy Collector, Palanpur who, while quashing the order of Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa vide order dated 16th January, 1990 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa for fresh inquiry. 2.6 On remand, the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa, passed an order dated 20th July, 1990 whereby, the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa, came to the conclusion that the land in question, was of a restricted tenure and thus, it could not have been partitioned amongst the family members. It is directed that there being a breach of the provisions of the Act if the parties are not agreeable to restore the land in question to its original position, the land in question shall vest in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. 2.7 The petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order dated 20th July, 1990, passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Palanpur who, vide order dated 15th April, 1991 dismissed the appeal and thereby, the order dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa stood confirmed. The Deputy Collector, Palanpur was of the opinion that vide entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971, there is a partition effected amongst the family members and the same has not been done on the basis of the succession as is evident from the pedigree available on the record. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, vide its order dated 2nd July, 2001, rejected the revision application. 2.8 Being aggrieved by the orders dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa, followed by the order dated 15th April, 1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur and further followed by the order dated 2nd July, 2001 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the said orders. 3. Mr. Mehul H. Rathod, learned advocate assisted by Ms. 3. Mr. Mehul H. Rathod, learned advocate assisted by Ms. Nilam N. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa and confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur and further confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 2nd July, 2001 are illegal. It is further submitted that the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa has initiated the proceedings under the provisions of section 84-C of the Tenancy Act; however, it was not open to the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa to have initiated proceedings after a period of more than 10 years. It is submitted that the entry number 176 was mutated on 1st December, 1971 and the same was well within the knowledge of the revenue authorities and thus, only on the basis of the proposal submitted by the team of Right of Records, the Deputy Collector, Palanpur ought not to have passed the order dated 22nd May, 1981. It is further submitted that the action having been initiated almost after a period of more than 10 years is bad in law and illegal. It is further submitted that though section 84-C does not specify the time limit for taking action; however, the authorities ought to have taken action within the reasonable time. 4. It is submitted that the land in question, though was allotted in favour of Alimammad Valibhai Muman i.e. the respondent No.3; however, the land in question was being cultivated by the father i.e. Mema Jiva Mansiya. It is further submitted that as per the understanding arrived at between the family members, the land in question, came to be allotted to the petitioners and accordingly, the said arrangement was recorded in the revenue record vide entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971. 5. It is further submitted that as per the understanding arrived at between the family members, the land in question, came to be allotted to the petitioners and accordingly, the said arrangement was recorded in the revenue record vide entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971. 5. It is submitted that as is discernible from the record, the order dated 22nd May, 1981, passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur in the first instance was not in consonance with the provisions of Tenancy Act inasmuch as, it is the Mamlatdar & ALT who, could have initiated the proceedings under section 84-C and that too after issuing notice to the parties and after hearing the parties, if it was found that there is a breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the parties were required to be given an opportunity to restore the land to its original position within the stipulated period and only after the expiry of the said stipulated time, that the land in question could have been vested in the State Government. Having had not followed the provisions of section 84-C in its true spirit, that the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat had quashed the order dated 22nd May, 1981 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa. It is further submitted that the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa, withdrew the notice; however, since the respondent No.3 was dissatisfied that he preferred an appeal and the Deputy Collector, Palanpur, remanded the matter once again to the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa to decide it afresh. 6. It is submitted that neither of the authorities viz. Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa, Deputy Collector, Palanpur and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has considered the aspect that the proceedings under section 84-C of the Tenancy Act were initiated against the petitioners after a period of more than 10 years, which could not have been done, in that, the Revenue Authorities are obliged to exercise the powers within a reasonable time. 7. It is next contended that even otherwise also, if one sees the provision of section 43 of the Tenancy Act and more particularly, proviso to section 43, it categorically provides that no previous sanction of the Collector is required if the partition of the land is amongst the members of the family who have direct blood relation or amongst the legal heirs of the tenant. It is thus submitted that the petitioners are in direct blood relation with the respondent No.3 and thus, there was no requirement of taking any previous sanction of the Collector before entering into the arrangement amongst the family members. It is submitted that no breach can be said to have been committed of the provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Thus, the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa, could not have initiated any action under the provisions of section 84-C for the breach of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioners, have been in the possession of the land in question since the year 1971 and have been cultivating the land in question, not only that, the petitioners have incurred a huge expenditure in making the land cultivable, as well as towards constructing bore-well etc. It is also submitted that the land in question is the only source of livelihood of the petitioners and the family members of the petitioners. 9. It is pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the respondent No.3, has filed an affidavit supporting the case of the petitioners to the effect that the land in question was transferred by the father of the respondent No.3 in the names of the petitioners, and consented to the transfer in the names of the petitioners as was done in the year 1971 by his father. 10. Per contra, Ms. Vrunda C. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respective respondents, submitted that it cannot be said that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, has committed any error in passing the order dated 2nd July, 2001. It is further submitted that the order dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa and the order dated 15th April, 1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur, are in consonance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act inasmuch as, the land in question was of a restricted tenure and it could not have been transferred without the prior permission of the Collector as provided under section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Such transfer being without any permission, was illegal and void. Thus, there being a breach committed, the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa has rightly initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Such transfer being without any permission, was illegal and void. Thus, there being a breach committed, the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa has rightly initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It is further submitted that the Deputy Collector, Palanpur in his order dated 15th April, 1991, has categorically supported the view taken by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa that the entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971 has been mutated in the revenue record not on the basis of the heirship but on the basis of the partition amongst the family members, aspect supported by the pedigree available on the record. It is submitted that the land in question was never alloted or granted in favour of the father of the petitioners but the same was allotted in favour of the respondent No.3 who happened to be the uncle of the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the land in question could not have been transferred and having done so, the same is in contravention of the provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. It is thus submitted that the order dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa followed by the order dated 15th April, 1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur and further followed by the order dated 2nd July, 2001 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are legal and valid and no interference, is warranted. While concluding, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Mr. Nirav K. Padhiyar, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the petitioners and the respondent No.3, are the family members and that the affidavit, has been filed of the respondent No.3 that he has no objection if the land in question is being retained by the petitioners inasmuch as, that the land in question was transferred in the name of the petitioners and since then, the petitioners have been cultivating the land in question. It is also submitted that the transfer was made by the father of the respondent No.3 in family division and owing to certain misunderstanding between the family members, the respondent No.3, had preferred an appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 has no objection if the land is retained by the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 has no objection if the land is retained by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the land in question, has been in the possession of the petitioners owing to the family division and the same was and is in their possession and being cultivated by them. 12. At the outset, suffice it to record that the Apex Court in the catena of decisions has held that if the power is vested in statutory authority without prescribing any time limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. In this behalf it is profitable to refer to some of the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this court. 13. In the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71 before the Apex Court, the challenge was to the order passed by the Mamlatdar holding the sale as invalid as the appellant therein was not an agriculturist belonging to the State of Gujarat. The transaction had taken place i.e. execution of the registered sale deed in the year 1972 followed by the mutation of the entries in the revenue record on 14th February, 1973; however, the Mamlatdar in the year 1976 initiated suo motu inquiry under the provisions of section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. The Apex Court while referring to the earlier judgments of the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the suo motu exercise of the powers by the Mamlatdar on the ground that the Mamlatdar did not exercise the powers within the reasonable time. 14. In the similar set of facts, this court in the case of Mavji Dhorji Vs State of Gujarat reported in 1994 (1) GLH 20 , has held that the powers under section 84-C of the Act are required to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the case before this court, the facts were to the effect that the petitioners therein had purchased a certain parcels of agricultural land from the respondents therein in the year 1981 and necessary entries in the record of rights were mutated, followed by certification somewhere in the month of June 1981. In the case before this court, the facts were to the effect that the petitioners therein had purchased a certain parcels of agricultural land from the respondents therein in the year 1981 and necessary entries in the record of rights were mutated, followed by certification somewhere in the month of June 1981. Owing to inquiry, the Mamlatdar & ALT, issued a show-cause notice under the provisions of section 84-C of the Tenancy Act requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why the sale transaction should not be invalidated and further action under the law should not be taken. In the said case, the notices were issued by the Mamlatdar after a period of nearly two years and thereafter an order came to be passed in the year 1984 declaring the sale transaction as invalid with a direction to the parties to restore the lands to its original position. This court, while considering various judgments, held that section 84-C, though does not provide for initiation of the action within a specified time; however, the powers under section 84-C of the Tenancy Act should be exercised within a reasonable time. 15. An issue which arises for the determination of this court is as to whether it was permissible for the authorities below to have exercised the powers after a long delay of 10 years. The said issue is required to be determined in the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled proposition of law. 16. In the present case Alimahmmad Valibhai Muman i.e. the respondent No.3 was granted land in question, admeasuring 5 acres 29 gunthas of village Kharodiya, Taluka Palanpur under the provisions of the Tenancy Act vide certificate dated 9th January, 1959 issued by the Mamlatdar & ALT Palanpur. As a result of the family division, the names of the petitioners came to be mutated in the revenue record vide entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971. Further, almost after a period of 10 years, a team of Right of Records was of the opinion that the transaction amongst the family members was in violation of the provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The said team submitted a proposal to the Office of the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector in turn, passed an order dated 22nd May, 1981 declaring the transaction in violation of the provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The said team submitted a proposal to the Office of the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector in turn, passed an order dated 22nd May, 1981 declaring the transaction in violation of the provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The said order dated 22nd May, 1981 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur was carried in appeal before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) who, vide order dated 22nd October, 1984 quashed and set aside the order dated 22nd May, 1981 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur. The Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the order dated 22nd May, 1981, has been passed without considering the provisions of section 84-C of the Tenancy Act inasmuch as, no proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar & ALT and the order has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur only on the basis of the proposal of the team of the Right of Records, which could not have been done. 17. Upon remand, the Mamlatdar in the first instance withdrew the notice which, was carried in the appeal by the respondent No.3 before the Deputy Collector, Palanpur who, in turn while quashing and setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT withdrawing the notice remanded the matter for consideration afresh. The Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa thereafter vide a cryptic order dated 20th July, 1990, held that the land being of a restricted tenure could not have been partitioned amongst the brothers without the permission as contemplated under the provisions of the section 43 of the Tenancy Act and thus, there is a breach of condition. The Mamlatdar & ALT has held that the entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971 is illegal. In the order dated 20th July, 1990 of the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa it has been recorded that if the parties fails to restore the land in question to its original position; the land in question would vest in the State Government, under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 84-C. The said order dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa was unsuccessfully challenged before the Deputy Collector, Palanpur. The revision application No.TEN.B.A.156/1992 filed by the petitioners met with the same fate before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The revision application No.TEN.B.A.156/1992 filed by the petitioners met with the same fate before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide its order dated 2nd July, 2001 rejected the revision application and thereby, the order dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa and order dated 15th April, 1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur, stood confirmed. 18. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, has not been in a position to controvert the fact that it was not permissible for the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa to have exercised the powers under the provisions of section 84-C after a period of more than 10 years. Besides, nothing concrete has been placed on record to suggest that the aspect of mutation of entry number 176 dated 7th December, 1971 was not within the knowledge of the authorities or that there was a fraud committed in the process of mutation of the said entry. Undisputedly, the petitioners and thereafter the heirs of the petitioners have been cultivating the land since the year 1971. Moreover, the petitioners, have incurred huge expenditure towards the improvement of the land in question viz. constructing bore well, making it cultivable etc. 19. Under the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed inasmuch as, it was impermissible for the Deputy Collector, Palanpur, in the first instance, to have initiated the proceedings for breach of the provisions of section 84-C and that too only on the basis of the report prepared by the team of right of records after almost a period of 10 years. Though there is no time provided under the provisions of section 84-C of the Tenancy Act for initiating proceedings; however, in view of the well settled proposition of law that wherever power is vested in the statutory authority without prescribing such time limit such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. Apparently, initiation of the action after a period of 10 years, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a reasonable time. This court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is satisfied that the exercise of powers by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur in the first instance and Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa in the second instance i.e. the order dated 20th July, 1990 was not within a reasonable time. 20. This court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is satisfied that the exercise of powers by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur in the first instance and Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa in the second instance i.e. the order dated 20th July, 1990 was not within a reasonable time. 20. In view of the above discussion, the orders dated 20th July, 1990 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT Deesa, followed by the order dated 15th April, 1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur and the order dated 2nd July, 2001 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, are hereby quashed and set aside. 21. The petition therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.