ORDER : 1. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at admission stage. Heard learned Mr. Nishit P Gandhi for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent-State. Though served none appeared on behalf of the other private respondents. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the respondent in Revision Application no. MVV/HKP/BNS/43 of 2019 as well as the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the respondent-District Collector in Revision case no. 51 of 2017 as well as order dated 28.02.2017 in RTS Appeal No. 155 of 2016. 3. The brief facts of the present petition is that the dispute pertains to the land in question situated at Revenue Survey No. 613 at moje Juna Deesa, Taluka Deesa, District- Banaskantha, which was running in the name of Prajapati Keshabhai Karshanbhai and was shown as an old tenure land in the revenue record. That upon the death of Prajapati Keshabhai Karshanbhai on 20.06.2009, the revenue entry no. 9999 dated 06.09.2012 was mutated in the revenue record of the land in question and the same was certified on 22.11.2012. The said land in question was purchased by the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 06.08.2013, from the heirs of the deceased Keshabhai. Thereafter, the entry no. 10297 was mutated in the revenue record pursuant to the aforesaid sale transaction and the same was also certified on 12.09.2013. 3.1 Though the name of the petitioner was mutated, one Prajapati Jayantibhai Kesahabhai has preferred RTS Appeal No. 95 of 2013 questioning the entry no. 9999, only claiming himself to be the left out legal heir of deceased Keshabhai Prajapati. It is alleged that in collusion with other respondents therein, who did not appeared before the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 30.12.2014 the Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and cancelled the entry no. 9999. The said order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the present petitioner by preferring Revision Application No. 78 of 2015 before the District Collector, which was came to be allowed vide order dated 01.08.2016 by setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector. It is contended that the District Collector has further observed that the petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question. It is contended that the District Collector has further observed that the petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question. 3.2 It is contended that Jayantibhai had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 2016 challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The said plaint came to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code vide order dated 15.12.2016. Despite the aforesaid facts, respondent Jayantibhai had preferred RTS Appeal No. 155 of 2016, challenging the entry no. 10297 mutated in the revenue record with regard to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. That without appreciating the proper facts of the case, and without passing any separate order for condonation of gross delay of more than three years, the learned Deputy Collector allowed the appeal and cancelled the entry no. 10297 vide order dated 28.02.2017 on the ground that land in question was a new tenure land and the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is executed without prior permission of competent authority. Against that order, the petitioner has preferred Revision Case no. 51 of 2017 before the District Collector which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 28.03.2019. Again against the order of the District Collector, the petitioner has preferred Revision Application No. MVV/HKP/BNS/43 of 2019 before the SSRD. That without proper appreciation of the facts, the SSRD has also rejected the application vide order dated 07.06.2019. 3.3 The main contention of the petitioner is that he is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question showing old tenure land in the village form no. 7/12. Therefore, the impugned orders are absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. 3.4 Therefore, the petitioner prays to quash and set aside the aforesaid impugned orders dated 07.06.2019, 28.03.2019 as well as 28.02.2017. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the petitioner has contended the aforesaid facts and further submitted that there was an unreasonable delay of more than three years in preferring the appeal and no order for condonation was passed. Further, the learned Deputy Collector does not have any power of suo-moto revision. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the petitioner has contended the aforesaid facts and further submitted that there was an unreasonable delay of more than three years in preferring the appeal and no order for condonation was passed. Further, the learned Deputy Collector does not have any power of suo-moto revision. He has also contended that since the Civil Court has rejected the suit of Jayantibhai and no appeal has been filed against such rejection thereof, the revenue authority ought not to have cancelled the entry in question since in earlier occasions the revenue authority has held that the present petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the land and the said fact has been accepted by the revenue authority. He has submitted that by the impugned orders the entries came to be cancelled only on the ground of new tenure land. He has also submitted that the Government has also issued resolution dated 17.03.2017, whereby the rights of the bonafide purchaser have been tried to be protected, even if there is some mistake on the part of any revenue entry, which has mentioned as new tenure land or old tenure land. He further submitted that the provisions made in the Government Resolution is squarely applicable in the present case and the petitioner has ready to pay the premium if it is found that the land in question is new tenure land. He has submitted that the if the land is treated as new tenure land, then the only technical irregularity as regard to the sale transaction, if any, that it was entered into without prior permission of the competent authority. Upon all these grounds, he has prayed to allow the present petition and relied upon the following decisions. (I) Kalpeshbhai natwarlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2009(3) GLH 372 . (II) Nathubhai meraman Darji Vs. Special Secretary (Appeal) reported in 1996 (3) GCD 691 . (III) Ratilal Maganlal Intwala through Heirs Vs. Special Secretary(Appeal) reported in 2013 (3) GLR 2520 . (IV) Raichand Kanjibhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (4) GLR 3469 . 5. Learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner has knowledge that the land in question was a re-grant land, as there is a mention in the revenue record that the land in question is re-granted land. (IV) Raichand Kanjibhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (4) GLR 3469 . 5. Learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner has knowledge that the land in question was a re-grant land, as there is a mention in the revenue record that the land in question is re-granted land. She has also submitted that earlier the litigation regarding the nature of the land is not considered, whereas, in the second round of litigation the point regarding nature of the land was raised and it was considered by the revenue authority. She has submitted that the order of the revenue authority are in consonance with the facts and the law and the authorities have not committed any error while passing such order. Further as per the Government Resolution, she has submitted that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner was having knowledge regarding the nature of land. Therefore, when the initial transaction itself was ab inito void, there would be no applicability of period of limitation. Hence, according to her, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner regarding the delay is devoid of merits. She has prayed to dismiss the petition and to upheld the orders of the revenue authorities. 6. In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that if the entry in question is set aside, it would be beneficial to the seller themselves, as they have already pocketed huge amount of consideration. He has submitted that such course of action is not equitable as the legal rights of the seller is already adjudicated upon by the Civil Court by dismissing the suit. 7. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and considering the materials placed on record, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the land in question was earlier belonging to Prajapati Keshabhai Karshanbhai and upon his demise, the same was mutated in the revenue record vide Revenue Survey no. 9999 dated 06.09.2012 which was certified on 22.11.2012. It appears that from the village form no. 7/12, the land was shown as old tenure land, however, in column of other particulars, it was stated to be re-grant. It appears from the records that the land in question has been mutated in the names of heirs of the deceased. 9999 dated 06.09.2012 which was certified on 22.11.2012. It appears that from the village form no. 7/12, the land was shown as old tenure land, however, in column of other particulars, it was stated to be re-grant. It appears from the records that the land in question has been mutated in the names of heirs of the deceased. Further, the sale deed in favour of the present petitioner has been executed way back in the year 2013, and the revenue entry to that regard has been mutated vide entry no. 10297 which has been thereafter certified by the revenue authorities. It also appears from the record that in view of the aforesaid entry the name of the present petitioner has been shown as occupier in the land, whereas, in the column of other particulars it is shown as regranted land. 8. It is reflected from the documentary evidence, that deceased Jayantibhai has preferred RTS Appeal No. 95/2013 before the Deputy Collector, Deesa challenging the entry no. 9999 dated 06.09.2012 regarding their right which came to be allowed by the Deputy Collector. It was observed therein that the entry to be entered after getting necessary documentary evidence regarding the heirship. Against that order, the present petitioner has preferred Revision Appeal No. 78/2018 before the Collector, Palanpur, wherein by order dated 01.08.2016, the aforesaid order came to be set aside and it was observed that after the entry of heir ship, the land was sold away way back in the year 2013 and the purchaser thereof is the bonafide purchaser to whom no hearing was afforded. It also appears from the record that Jayantibhai has filed civil suit in the year 2019 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deesa for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the present petitioner which came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. It appears that the learned Civil Judge, had observed that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property. Thereafter, the said Jayantibhai had filed another RTS Appeal No. 155 of 2016 challenging the entry no. 10297 dated 12.09.2013, wherein learned Collector has set aside the order. It appears that the learned Civil Judge, had observed that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property. Thereafter, the said Jayantibhai had filed another RTS Appeal No. 155 of 2016 challenging the entry no. 10297 dated 12.09.2013, wherein learned Collector has set aside the order. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the say of Jayantibhai regarding the entitlement in the land in question has been came to an end by the earlier order of learned Collector and that order has not been challenged by Jayantibhai instead he has filed civil suit which came to be dismissed by the Civil Court. It is an undisputed fact that the sale transaction has occurred in the year 2013 when Jayantibhai has preferred RTS Appeal for cancellation of the entry no.9999, and the sale transaction was mutated in the revenue record. Whereas deceased Jayantibhai has preferred RTS Appeal No. 95 of 2013, without challenging the transaction of the petitioner. It appears that after failure in Civil Court, deceased Jayantibhai has preferred the RTS Appeal challenging the entry mutated in favour of the petitioner after almost three years. 9. It is pertinent to note that the under the Government Resolution being GNT/3016/2135 dated 17.03.2017, wherein elaborate provisions has been made for protecting the rights of the bonafide purchaser, who has purchased the land on the basis of the revenue entry. It is provided therein that sometimes in the revenue records it is reflected that the land is old tenure land but in reality it is new tenure land and the bonafide purchaser purchases the said land as old tenure land. It is also provided that if there is no entry made in the revenue record showing that the land in question is restricted land and of new tenure land, in such cases, if the land is shown as old tenure land which is sold for agricultural purpose and if there is no any breach of other condition, necessary premium be recovered and the breach of condition can be regularised. 10. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that when there are two entries made in the revenue record relating to the land in question, the land is shown as old tenure land, then, and in the column of other particulars, it is shown as re granted land. 10. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that when there are two entries made in the revenue record relating to the land in question, the land is shown as old tenure land, then, and in the column of other particulars, it is shown as re granted land. However, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has knowledge about the same. Even during the earlier proceedings the revenue authority has never observed that it is new tenure land. There was no question of knowledge of petitioner, because the order had been made during the life time of deceased and if any such averment could have been made it was the said gentleman who had in fact never complained of such a lapse during his life time regarding the nature of the land being new tenure land. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits under the Government Resolution stated herein above. 11. Moreover, now it is well settled that in case where there is statutory time limit is prescribed for initiating remedial action, then the aggrieved person is bound by the said time schedule and in the event the remedy is invoked beyond the statutory period of limitation, the authority cannot entertain the proceedings on merits without first recording a decision as to whether the delay which has occurred in instituting the proceedings has been explained or not. It is also well settled that any revenue entry in the revenue record, is served for fiscal purpose only and the mutation is reflected on record of transaction. It is right that whenever any registered transaction takes, place it ought to be reflected in the form of mutation entry. At the same time the revenue authority cannot reach to conclusive finding, while dealing with the question of mutation entry based on the registered sale deed, that the registered sale deed was illegal or void. Further, when there is registered sale deed it is statutory duty on the part of the revenue authority to make mutation entry in the revenue record. By virtue of section 135(c) of the Bombay Land Revenue Act, any person acquiring the right by virtue of the registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the village accountant. Further, when there is registered sale deed it is statutory duty on the part of the revenue authority to make mutation entry in the revenue record. By virtue of section 135(c) of the Bombay Land Revenue Act, any person acquiring the right by virtue of the registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the village accountant. Admittedly, in this case the sale transaction has already been entered in the revenue record way back in the year 2013 and the same was not challenged by the authority at the relevant time. It is also admitted facts that the rights of the party has already been finally decided by the Civil Court. Further, in view of the fact that in the revenue record as the land in question has been shown primarily as old tenure land. Even if, breach is found then it can be regularised by paying necessary premium. However, the entry cannot be cancelled as has been done by the revenue authorities. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observations, the petition deserves to be allowed. 12. The petition is allowed. It is observed that the petitioner is entitled to avail benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.03.2017 with the same terms and conditions. The impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the respondent in Revision Application no. MVV/HKP/BNS/43 of 2019 as well as the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the respondent-District Collector in Revision case no. 51 of 2017 as well as order dated 28.02.2017 in RTS Appeal No. 155 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside. No orders as to costs. Direct service is permitted.