JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition filed under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers have been made: “[a] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby be pleased quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/GARKH/SNR/13/2010; [b] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/GARKH/SNR/13/2010 as well as the orders passed by the Collector and Dy. Collector respectively; [c] Your Lordships may be pleased to award cost of proceedings” 2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are represented by Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader. Though served, respondent Nos. 4 and 7 have chosen not to appear before this Court nor engaged any lawyer to defend the case. Respondent No.6 has been deleted as party respondent in the writ petition in view of the statement made by learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, which has been recorded in the order dated 27.01.2020. Accordingly, name of respondent No.6 has been deleted. 3. The short facts of the case put forward by the petitioners are as under: 3.1. That father of present petitioners purchased a parcel of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 1235 admeasuring 5 Acre 22 Gunathas situated at Village and Taluka Dhangadhra, District Surendranagar from Ghanshyambhai Chunilal Salat by a registered sale deed dated 08.03.1972 and accordingly, Entry No. 1616 came to be posted and certified in the revenue record on 24.09.1972, after following the procedure under the Saurashtra Gharkhed Ordinance, 1949 (herein after referred to as 'the Gharkhed Act' for short). 3.2. That father of the petitioners namely Prahladbhai Laxmishankar Salat, who is purchaser of the land, expired on 07.12.1981 and thereafter, names of present petitioners, being legal heirs of purchaser of the land, came to be mutated on 01.08.1982 vide Entry No. 2684, which came to be certified on 20.09.1982. 3.3. 3.2. That father of the petitioners namely Prahladbhai Laxmishankar Salat, who is purchaser of the land, expired on 07.12.1981 and thereafter, names of present petitioners, being legal heirs of purchaser of the land, came to be mutated on 01.08.1982 vide Entry No. 2684, which came to be certified on 20.09.1982. 3.3. On one hand, the names of present petitioners came to be mutated in the revenue record on 01.08.1982 and on the other hand, the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra issued a notice on 17.03.1981 calling upon the petitioners why the transaction should not be canceled since there is breach of provision of Sections 54 and 75 of the Gharkhed Act. The petitioners appeared before the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra and filed reply. Thereafter, the said notice was adjudicated and proceeding was dropped by the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra by an order dated 31.03.1982 in view of the fact that the authority has taken the entry in dispute in the year 1982 i.e. after a period of 9 years. 3.4. Thereafter, name of Nirmalaben Laxmishankarbhai Salat – respondent No.7 herein, being sister of father of the petitioners, who is purchaser of the land, came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 6978, which was confirmed on 28.12.1994. 3.5. The Deputy Collector, Dhangdhara again started proceeding being Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.56/2003-04 for the breach of Sections 54 and 75 of the Gharkhed Act by issuing notice on 08.08.2006 calling upon the petitioners why Entry No. 1616, which was certified on 24.09.1972, should not be cancelled on the ground that the purchaser was not an agriculturist. On 01.01.2009, the Deputy Collector, Dhangadhra, after giving an opportunity of hearing to concerned parties, canceled Entry No. 1616 and declared that the sale deed executed in favour of the father of the petitioners is null and void. 3.6. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No. 04/2009-10 before the District Collector, Surendranagar and on 31.03.2010, the District Collector Surendranagar dismissed the appeal. 3.7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed revision application being Revision Application No.MVV/GARKH/SNR/13/2010 before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes), Ahmedabad. On 26.04.2013, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes), Ahmedabad dismissed the revision application. 3.8. Hence, this petition. 4. 3.7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed revision application being Revision Application No.MVV/GARKH/SNR/13/2010 before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes), Ahmedabad. On 26.04.2013, the Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes), Ahmedabad dismissed the revision application. 3.8. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr.D.K.Puj, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the order impugned in the writ petition is required to be quashed and set aside on two grounds that the concerned authority has initiated the proceeding after a period of unreasonable delay i.e. after more than 34 years from the date of execution of the sale deed as well as reviewing his own order, which was passed way back in the year 1982 i.e. after a period of 24 years. It is an admitted position that the father of the petitioners had purchased the land by a registered sale deed and accordingly Entry No. 1616 was mutated and certified on 24.09.1972. The Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra issued notice under Sections 54 and 75 of the Gharkhed Act on 17.03.1981 i.e. after a period of 9 years and thereafter, the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra dropped the proceeding by observing the aspect that the concerned authority ought to have initiated the proceeding within a year and therefore, it would not be appropriate to cancel the entry. The said order of dropping the proceeding by the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra was never challenged by any of the parties nor suomotu was taken out by the higher authority and therefore, the order of the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra became final. He would submit that by notice dated 08.08.2006 for the alleged breach of Sections 54 and 75 of the Gharkhed Act, the proceeding was initiated and that too after a period of more than 34 years from the date of execution of sale deed. He would submit that such action taken by the authority is at belated stage. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the decision, which are as under: [i] State of Gujarat V. Patel Raghav Natha reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 . [ii] Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. V. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788 . [iii] Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. V. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors. reported in 2009 (9) SCC 353. [iv] Collector and others v. P. Mangamma and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488 . [v] Nirmalaben Laxmishankar Sompura Vs. [ii] Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. V. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788 . [iii] Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. V. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors. reported in 2009 (9) SCC 353. [iv] Collector and others v. P. Mangamma and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488 . [v] Nirmalaben Laxmishankar Sompura Vs. State of Gujarat through Secretary, unreported decision dated 04.12.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13007 of 2012 and allied matters. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has emphasized regarding the propriety of exercise of such powers beyond a reasonable period contending that it would not justify exercise of such power beyond a reasonable period as observed and laid down in catena of judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil (supra). Referring to the observations made in this judgment including the judgment in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya (supra), which in turn has referred to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector and others V. P. Mangamma and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488 and also referred to the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyer (3rd Edition, 2005) emphasizing that; “That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects such party from losses that he ought not to suffer.” ‘Reasonable time’ is defined to be so much time as is necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case.” Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners relied upon the above-referred decisions and would submit that in the present case, the suo motu power is exercised beyond a reasonable period i.e. after more than 34 years. He would further submit that such exercise of powers cannot be sustained and it is arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore, present petition be allowed and the order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes), Ahmedabad be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. He would further submit that such exercise of powers cannot be sustained and it is arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore, present petition be allowed and the order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes), Ahmedabad be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi appearing the Respondent State has referred to the background of the facts and tried to submit that the underlying purpose of the Gharkhed Act is required to be borne in mind. It was emphasized that the purpose of such Gharkhed Act was to give protection to such farmers or the agricultural labourers in order to protect the land being transferred and to protect their land. She would further submit that the restrictions which have been placed are for the benefit of such farmers or the agricultural labourers with a condition to take the previous approval and / or transfer only in favour of the agriculturist subject to the procedure and approval. Therefore, learned AGP has referred to Section 54 as well the notices issued in exercise of power under Section 75 of the Gharkhed Act and would submit that the land in question is sought to be transferred either without the permission or the approval and so called transfer is not a legal or valid transfer with necessary permission and by a registered document or the sale deed. Therefore, it is submitted that the title qua the land in question can be transferred only by a registered sale deed which has not been executed in light of the statutory provisions of the Gharkhed Act. Therefore, such transaction of the so-called sale are not valid and it cannot be said that it was valid transfer of the land. However, learned AGP submitted that if the land could not be transferred without approval and necessary permission, any such transaction which prohibits such transaction, the sale of the land would be bad and, therefore, the notice has been issued as there is violation of statutory provisions and the restriction imposed. 8. Learned AGP would submit that what could be said to be a reasonable period is required to be examined from case to case basis as there cannot be any straight jacket formula to decide about the reasonable period. 8. Learned AGP would submit that what could be said to be a reasonable period is required to be examined from case to case basis as there cannot be any straight jacket formula to decide about the reasonable period. She would further submit that the purpose has to be considered and thereafter, the word ‘reasonable period’ has to be considered for the purpose of deciding whether the exercise of suomotu powers can be said to be arbitrary or not. 9. With regard to the emphasis made on the word ‘reasonable period’ with reference to Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyer (3rd Edition, 2005) and other observations, it was submitted that the power could be exercised only when it has been noticed in each particular case depending upon the facts of the case and therefore, the persons, who tried to circumvent the statutory provisions, may not be heard to say about the exercise of powers beyond a reasonable period. She, therefore, would submit that the petition may be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an admitted fact that father of the petitioners purchased the land in the year 1972, for which, Entry No. 1616 was mutated. The Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra initiated proceeding in the year 1982 i.e. after a period of 9 years and the same proceeding was dropped in the year 1982 itself. Therefore, there is no reason for another officer to initiate the proceeding after a period of 34 years from the date of Entry No. 1616 mutated and after a period of 24 years from the date of order, by which, the notice was issued and proceeding was dropped by the Assistant Collector, Dhangadhra in the year 1982. Hence, I do not find any reason to initiate the proceeding at belated stage and the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners are applicable to present case. Therefore, present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/GARKH/SNR/13/2010 and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the District Collector, Surendranagar in Gharkhed Ordinance Appeal No. 04/2009-10 as well as order dated 01.01.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Dhangadhra in Gharkhed Ordinance Case No.56/2003-04 are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.