JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 14th May 2012 passed by District Collector, Rajkot, in Case No. Land-Revision 211-Case No. 2/2010-11. During the pendency of the petition, amendment is carried out and it is prayed to direct the respondent authorities to cancel Entry No. 4630 dated 6.2.2015 for the land in question and all consequential mutation in the revenue record made thereafter. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 10th June 1970 the petitioner was granted land bearing Survey No. 729 paiki 16 Acres of Villiage-Mitana, Taluka-Tankara, District-Rajkot on new tenure basis for the purpose of cultivation by the Deputy Collector-Morbi, the respondent no. 3 herein. It is respectfully stated and submitted that thereafter sanad was also granted on 20th June, 1970. It is stated that the petitioner was cultivating the land in question and he has never committed any breach of condition of the grant of the land in question. It is stated that even in revenue record, the name of the petitioner was mutated. It is stated that the respondent no. 3, on 7th June, 2006 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner for alleged breach of the condition of grant of the land in question by the petitioner. It is stated therein that the petitioner is not complying with the terms of Sanad and is not doing agricultural activities over the land in question. The petitioner gave detailed reply dated 20th June, 2006 to the aforesaid Show-Cause Notice. 2.1 It is also stated that the possession of the land in question has always remained with the petitioner and the petitioner is the owner of the land in question and, in fact, doing agricultural activities. It is stated that Panch Rojkam was also produced before the respondent no. 3, which clearly reflects the possession of the land in question has remained with the petitioner only, it is also stated that the Mamlatdar Office gave detailed Report to the Deputy Collector - the respondent no. 3 in the said proceedings. After considering all the aforesaid facts, the Deputy Collector-Morbi, the respondent no. 3 herein passed an order dated 05th April, 2007 inter-alia withdrawing the said Show Cause Notice. 2.2 It is further stated that thereafter no further action was taken for considerable time. 3 in the said proceedings. After considering all the aforesaid facts, the Deputy Collector-Morbi, the respondent no. 3 herein passed an order dated 05th April, 2007 inter-alia withdrawing the said Show Cause Notice. 2.2 It is further stated that thereafter no further action was taken for considerable time. In the meantime, the petitioner gave an application for conversion of the land into old tenure land. It is pertinent to note here that as per the policy of the Government, the petitioner is entitled to get the land converted into old tenure land, as there was nothing wrong and/or illegal on the part of the petitioner in making application for conversion of the land into old tenure land. 2.3 It is stated that District Collector-Rajkot, respondent no. 2, on 3rd October, 2007 also asked for the Report of the Deputy Collector as to why the revenue entry in favor of the petitioner was mutated on 27th November, 1992 and allotment was made on 10th June, 2007. It is pertinent to note that, in fact, it is the duty of the respondent authorities to mutate the order of allotment in revenue record. It is stated that only because the revenue entry of the order of allotment of the land is mutated as far back in the year 1992, it cannot be said that there is any fault on the part of the petitioner. It is also stated that even otherwise the revenue entry are only for fiscal purposes and do not affect any right, title or interest of the petitioner. It is stated that respondent no. 2 only on the aforesaid premises of revenue entry being mutated after 22 years in favor of the petitioner issued Show-Cause Notice to the petitioner for taking the order of the Deputy Collector into suo-motu revision and the said Show Cause Notice was issued on 3rd January, 2011, i.e. after delay of more than three and a half years. It is also stated that the petitioner lodged objections to the aforesaid revision proceedings. In the meantime, in the proceedings for conversion of the land into old tenure land, the concerned Talati-cum-Mantri gave a favorable report in favor of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner lodged objections to the aforesaid revision proceedings. In the meantime, in the proceedings for conversion of the land into old tenure land, the concerned Talati-cum-Mantri gave a favorable report in favor of the petitioner. 2.4 It is respectfully stated that without properly considering the objections lodged by the petitioner, though the District Collector has no jurisdiction to take the matter into suo-motu revision after period of more than three and a half years and though the Deputy Collector was exercising the delegated powers of the District Collector, on 14th May, 2012, the respondent no. 2 passed an order in Case being No. Land-Revision-211-Case No. 2/ 2010-11 thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 5th April, 2007 passed by the respondent no. 3 and vesting the land in question in the Government. 2.5 It is also stated that this Court has passed an order of status quo, then also, on 6.2.2015, the respondent authorities made mutation Entry No. 4630 and vested the land in question in the Government as per the order of the District Collector. In the revenue record, the land is shown as the land belonging to the Government. Therefore, it is stated that Entry No. 4630 is nullity and it amounts to overreaching the process of this Court. 3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Nishit Gandhi for learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the petitioners and learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi submitted that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to take the matter into suo-motu revision and that too after delay of more than three and a half years and, therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 is completely without jurisdiction. He also submitted that it has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions that the suo-motu revision proceedings cannot be taken after more than reasonable period and time of reasonable period is one year and therefore the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. He also submitted that the Deputy Collector was exercising delegated powers of the District Collector and, therefore, the District Collector has no revisional power against the order passed by the Deputy Collector. 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. He also submitted that the Deputy Collector was exercising delegated powers of the District Collector and, therefore, the District Collector has no revisional power against the order passed by the Deputy Collector. He further submitted that the District Collector has taken the matter in suo-motu revision proceedings on the ground that the entry in favor of the petitioner was mutated in the year 1992, which was after delay of about 20 years from the date of allotment. He also submitted that in the matter pertaining to mutation of entry, the Collector has no power and/or jurisdiction to vest the land in the State Government. Such power is not available to the Collector either under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 and/or the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He further submitted that the order is passed beyond the Show Cause Notice and, thus, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. 4.1 Mr. Gandhi further submitted that as per the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the decision reported in 2007 (1) GLR 631, the Collector has no power to take the matter into revision, once the sanad is issued pursuant to the allotment of land. In the present case, it is very much clear position that the sanad has been issued and the same is not in dispute either by the District Collector and/or by the Deputy Collector in the aforesaid impugned order. He also submitted that time and again this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down that delay in suo-motu action is fatal and such orders are liable to be quashed even on the ground of delay in initiating suo-motu proceedings. 4.2 That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in its judgment reported in AIR 2007 SC 473 (Supra) that the question of limitation is a judicial question and, therefore, the petition against the Show Cause Notice was also held to be maintainable in such case. It is respectfully submitted that, in that case, the statutory period of limitation was five years. It is respectfully submitted that, in that case, the statutory period of limitation was five years. In the present case, there is no period of limitation prescribed and as per the consistent views taken by this Hon’ble Court, in the matters under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the suo-motu powers cannot be exercised beyond the period of more than one year or in any case beyond the period of more than three years. It is pertinent to note that if the party wants to challenge the order of the Deputy Collector, period of limitation prescribed in the Act is 60 days. However, just because no time limit is prescribed in exercising the suo-motu powers, it cannot be said that they can be exercised beyond the period of one year as per the consistent views taken by this Hon’ble Court. He further submitted that even otherwise the petitioner has not committed any default in complying with the terms of allotment of the land in question. 4.3 He also submitted that the District Collector has grossly erred in holding that the breach of conditions of the allotment of the land in question is committed by the petitioner. That the District Collector has grossly erred in holding that the petitioner is not residing in the said Village or is not cultivating the land in question. It is respectfully submitted that such findings given by the District Collector is without proper verification of facts. Assuming without admitting that the same is true, the petitioner would be the aggrieved party and the order of confiscation of the land in question could not have been passed. He has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Govind Murji Patel (Kerai) and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2007 (1) GLR 671 (ii) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Hemantsingh B. Jadeja, 2008 (3) GLR 2023 (iii) Chandrakant D. Nimavat vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (4) GLR 3035 (iv) Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2011 (3) GLR 2587 (v) State of Punjab and Others vs. Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk P. Union Limited, AIR 2007 (1) SC (Supp) 473 5. Per contra, learned AGP, Ms. Tripathi has vehemently submitted that the impugned order of the revenue authority is proper. Milk P. Union Limited, AIR 2007 (1) SC (Supp) 473 5. Per contra, learned AGP, Ms. Tripathi has vehemently submitted that the impugned order of the revenue authority is proper. She has also submitted that delay has been explained by giving reasons while disposing of the revision. She has also submitted that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions of Sanad and, therefore, the action taken for vesting the land in the Government by the revenue authority is legal. She also submitted that the land is situated near Morbi Highway and since the petitioner was not carrying out the agricultural activity, action taken by the authority is just and proper. She has submitted that action of the authority is not without jurisdiction and it was taken within reasonable time. She has, therefore, prayed to dismiss the present petition. 6. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, coupled with the material placed on record and various decisions relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioners, it appears that there is no dispute that initially the land was given to the deceased petitioner way back in 1970 and revenue entry to that effect was made in the year 1992, which also came to be certified by the revenue authority at the relevant time. It appears from record that initially Deputy Collector has issued show cause notice to the deceased Mansang Nihalsang as to the breach of conditions of Sanad way back in the year 2006. The same was replied by him and it is specifically stated that he is in possession of the land and he is ploughing the land through Dana Bhikha and Babu Kama. On the basis of the reply, the then Mamlatdar, Tankara, has visited the site and reported to Deputy Collector that at the time of visit, there was no crop standing over the land but there were signs of ploughing of the land. Necessary panchnama was carried out by the then Mamlatdar. Deputy Collector has also relied upon revenue records showing that there was ploughing of the land by Mansang Nihalsang and on that basis, vide order dated 5.4.2007, Deputy Collector has withdrawn the show cause notice and accepted the explanation offered by the deceased petitioner. It was specifically found by Deputy Collector that the farmer is ploughing the land in question himself. 7. It was specifically found by Deputy Collector that the farmer is ploughing the land in question himself. 7. It also appears that the petitioner had applied for conversion of land from New Tenure to Old Tenure land and Talati-cum-Mantri, has opined that tenure of the land could be changed from New Tenure to Old Tenure, as all the conditions are fulfilled. 8. It also appears that Collector, Rajkot, has taken into revision order of Deputy Collector dated 5.4.2007 and he has set aside the order of Deputy Collector. At this juncture, it needs to be observed that the power exercised by Deputy Collector was the power of Collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Under these circumstances, same authority cannot take the order in suo-motu revision. It appears that the land was given to the petitioner in 1970, however, entry to that effect was made only in the year 1992, but for this delay the petitioner cannot be blamed. It is also an admitted fact that Deputy Collector in the year 2007 has withdrawn notice for breach of condition of Sanad. Thereafter, the Collector has taken into suo-motu revision said order of the Deputy Collector, which is without jurisdiction. Not only that power of revision exercised or the action taken under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules made thereunder is beyond reasonable time. It is well settled principle of law that powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code or revisional jurisdiction can be exercised within reasonable period of time. Exercise of such revisional power after lapse of long time is bad in law. In the facts of the present case, exercise of revisional power is also not within reasonable time and, therefore, in view of decisions referred to herein above, which are relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner, the law is well settled. In the present case also, exercise of powers by revisional authority is beyond reasonable period of time and further that since Deputy Collector was acting as Collector, his order dated 5.4.2007 could not have been taken into revision by the Collector himself being the same authority under Bombay Land Revenue Code. Under these circumstances, present petition deserves to be allowed. 9. In view of above, present petition is allowed. Under these circumstances, present petition deserves to be allowed. 9. In view of above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 14th May 2012 passed by District Collector, Rajkot, in Case No. Land-Revision 211-Case No. 2/2010-11 is quashed and set aside and Entry No. 4630 dated 6.2.2015 for the land in question and all consequential mutation in the revenue record made thereafter are also cancelled. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.