ORDER : 1. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 23.3/2.4.2018 passed by respondent-SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/BNS/11 of 2017 as well as order dated 8.3.2017 passed by respondent- District Collector in suo-motu proceeding being B/Jamin-4/Suomotu/ Revision Case No.7 of 2015. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under: 2.1 It is stated that the dispute pertains to the land bearing Revenue Survey no. 30/1, admeasuring 01-58-6 Haq-RASq. mts. at mouje-Soyla, Tal.Deesa, Dist. Banaskantha (herein after referred to as ‘land in question’). It is also stated that the land in question was originally an Inami land and vide entry no. 36 name of Jadiben and Ravjibhai - the grandfather of the petitioners was mutated in the Revenue Record. It is further stated that thereafter one entry no. 126 dated 18.07.1976 was mutated in the Revenue Record with regard to the sale of land in question to Brahman Lachiram Ramji. It is further submitted that the said entry no. 126 was not certified and the said sale was never given effect by the parties. 2.2 It is further stated that Ravjibhai passed away on 31.05.1999 and heir ship entry no. 239 dated 19.07.1995 was mutated. It is further submitted that thereafter vide entry no. 252, dated 06.02.1996 the entry of relinguishment of the right was made. It is also stated that the land in question is throughout in possession of the petitioners and they are personally cultivating the same. It is further submitted that sale deed dated 14.05.1976 was executed by Brahman Lachiram Ramji, without paying any consideration to the grandfather of the petitioners and therefore the possession was never given to the so called purchaser. It is further stated that father of the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit no. 101 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid sale deed. It is stated that heirs of Brahman Lachiram Ramji accepted the contentions of the plaint and therefore vide order dated 19.11.2011 the suit of the father of the petitioners was decreed and so called sale deed dated 14.04.1976 was quashed. 101 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid sale deed. It is stated that heirs of Brahman Lachiram Ramji accepted the contentions of the plaint and therefore vide order dated 19.11.2011 the suit of the father of the petitioners was decreed and so called sale deed dated 14.04.1976 was quashed. 2.3 It is stated that despite the fact that the sale deed is quashed and set aside and despite the fact that the petitioners, who are the heirs of original grantee, are in possession of the land in question, the respondent-District Collector initiated Sharat Bhang Case No. 1 of 2012 on the ground that in the year 1976 the same was sold without obtaining permission from the competent authority. It is stated that the initiation of the Sharat Bhang proceedings are highly belated as the same are initiated after delay of almost 37 years, It is further stated that suo motu proceedings after such a gross and inordinate delay could not have been initiated. More particularly, when the sale deed was never given effect by the parties and possession was never transferred in favor of any other person. It is further stated that vide order dated 17.05.2013 the Deputy Collector found breach of condition and ordered forfeiture of land in question with State Government. 2.4 It is stated that aforesaid order was challenged by preferring appeal case no. 30 of 2013. It is further stated that vide order dated 04.07.2014 the application was partly allowed and the case was remanded back to the Deputy Collector to consider it afresh after hearing all the affected parties and after considering the Government resolution. 2.5 It is further stated that, thereafter, the remand case was numbered as Sharat Bhang Remand Case No. 11 of 2014. It is further stated that vide order dated 17.04.2015, the learned Deputy Collector found that the petitioners are possession of the and in question and since the sale deed is quashed and set aside by the competent civil court, there is no breach of condition and ordered withdrawal of the said notice. 2.6 It is stated that one Civil Misc. Appeal no. 46 of 2015 is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 101 of 2011. It is stated that aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector was taken in suomotu revision by the learned District Collector being B/Jamin-4/ suo-motu/revision case no. 2.6 It is stated that one Civil Misc. Appeal no. 46 of 2015 is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 101 of 2011. It is stated that aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector was taken in suomotu revision by the learned District Collector being B/Jamin-4/ suo-motu/revision case no. 7 of 2015. It is further stated that initiation of the said proceedings are completely without jurisdiction and authority of law. It is also stated that without considering the proper facts of the case, vide order dated 08.03.2017, learned District Collector ordered forfeiture of the land in question. 2.7 It is stated that petitioners preferred revision application no. JMN/BNS/11 of 2017 before the respondent-SSRD. The petitioners also submitted detailed written arguments. It is stated that the learned SSRD without properly consider the case of the petitioners, rejected the revision application vide impugned order dated 23.03/02.04.2018. 2.8 It is stated that the petitioners pointed out that in the case of similarly situated persons, the land was already regularized and therefore the case of the petitioners should have been considered. It is further stated that though the petitioners are identically situated, their case is not considered by the respondent-authorities. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the respondent - SSRD as well as District Collector, the petitioners have preferred present petition. 4. Heard Mr.Nishit Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr.Nikunj Kanara for the respondent-State. 4.1 Mr.Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders are passed without jurisdiction and authority of law and they are contrary to the provisions of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. He further submitted that the proceedings were initiated after gross and inordinate delay of 37 years, which is not permissible. 4.2 He further submitted that there is no breach of any of the conditions and there is no actual transfer of possession. He also submitted that the so called sale deed in favor of Brahman Lachiram Ramji is already quashed and set aside by the competent Civil Court. He further submitted that possession of land in question has throughout remained with petitioners and his predecessors. He also submitted that learned Deputy Collector rightly held that there is no breach of any of the conditions by the petitioners. He further submitted that possession of land in question has throughout remained with petitioners and his predecessors. He also submitted that learned Deputy Collector rightly held that there is no breach of any of the conditions by the petitioners. He also submitted that Deputy Collector found the petitioners to be in possession of the land in question and therefore rightly ordered withdrawal of the Sharat Bhang Notice. 4.3 He further submitted that learned District Collector cannot initiate the suo-motu proceedings against the order passed by the Deputy Collector. He also submitted that Deputy is Collector was functioning as a delegate of learned District Collector and therefore also, the same could not have been revised by the District Collector. He also submitted that the authorities have regularized identical alleged breach in favor of similarly situated persons, however, the case of the petitioners is treated differently. He also submitted that the binding decision cited at bar are not considered at the time of passing the impugned order. He has relied upon following decisions in support of his submissions. (i) Bharatkumar C. Jinwala v. State of Gujarat reported in 2015 (1) GLR 576 . (ii) Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another v. D. Narsing Rao and Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695 . (iii) Labhubjhai Valjibhai Gajera v. Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department,Gujarat State and Others reported in 2011 (1) GLH 432 . (iv) Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim reported in 1997 (6) SCC 71 . 4.4 In view of above decisions, he has prayed to allow present petition. 5. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Kanara for the State has supported the impugned order of the revenue authority and has submitted that the authority has properly passed the impugned order and this Court may not interfere with the same. He has submitted that before the Civil Court, the State Government was not a party and, therefore, decree passed in the matter of private parties is not binding to the State Government. He has prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having considered the submissions made on both the sides coupled with the material placed on record, it emerges from record that there is no dispute regarding factum that grand-parents of the petitioners were holding the land in question. He has prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having considered the submissions made on both the sides coupled with the material placed on record, it emerges from record that there is no dispute regarding factum that grand-parents of the petitioners were holding the land in question. It also emerges from record that neither grandparents of the petitioners nor the petitioners have parted with possession of the land in favour of private respondent. It also emerges from record that there was civil litigation initiated between the private parties wherein the purchaser has accepted that they were not in possession of the land and on the basis of compromise the Sale Deed came to be cancelled. Now, according to the Government, as the initial transaction entered into by the grand-parents of the petitioners with private respondent was without prior permission of the concerned authority, there is breach of provisions of law and, therefore, the land needs to be vested in the Government. It is pertinent to note that though there was sale deed executed between the parties, it was never acted upon as no possession was handed over to the purchaser. Not only that but there is a decree, of course compromise decree, passed in the matter cancelling the sale deed and, therefore, when the transaction itself has been cancelled from the inception, nature of land cannot be said to be changed merely on execution of a Sale Deed. It also appears from record that possession of the land has never changed hands and the original occupier and their heirs are in occupation of the land in question. 7. It also emerges from record that suo motu action has been initiated after almost 37 years of the transaction and exercise of suo motu power after such a long delay cannot be considered to be appropriate and there is no explanation in this regard from the revenue authority for initiating action after such a long period. Therefore, in view of various decisions, which are relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioners, it is settled that exercise of revisional power should be within reasonable period of time and if there is inordinate delay, such action cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In the present case also, suo motu exercise of power cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. In view of above, present petition is allowed. In the present case also, suo motu exercise of power cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. In view of above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.3/2.4.2018 passed by respondent-SSRD in Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/BNS/11 of 2017 as well as order dated 8.3.2017 passed by respondent-District Collector in suo motu proceeding being B/Jamin-4/Suo-motu/Revision Case No.7 of 2015 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.