JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.8.2011 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) Ahmedabad in Revision No.MVV/HKP/Bhavan/13 of 2006 as well as order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar in R.O./Entry Revision Case/25/02-03. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah for learned advocate Mr. B.A. Surti appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4. 3. In this petition, notice was issued vide order dated 18.1.2012 and thereafter, vide order dated 27.8.2013, rule was issued and impugned order and proceedings were stayed pending final disposal of this petition. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of present petition are states as under :- 4.1 That the name of one Mr. Dhangar Bhagwangar was reflecting in the village Form No.6 in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.103 and 104, Mouje Pipardi Gam, Taluka Botad, District Bhavnagar admeasuring Hec.Are.Sq.meters 3-49-04 vide Entry No.45 dated 25.4.1957. Thereafter, the aforesaid land was purchased by the petitioner on 1.5.1972 from Dhangar Bhagwangar by way of a registered sale deed upon payment of consideration of Rs.3000/-. Some how the aforesaid sale deed, at the relevant point of time, though registering the name of present petitioner, for that no mutation entry was mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar expired on 19.11.1972 and his son viz. Keshavbhai Dhangar name was mutated vide entry No.387 on 10.2.1974. Thereafter, after more than 20 years, the name of present petitioner was mutated in the revenue record vide entry No. 809 on 1.9.1995 and the same was certified on 6.10.1995. 4.2 Since than the petitioner in possession of the land in question and his name was continued to remain in the revenue record. The land is being utilized by the petitioner for growing seasonal crops such as cotton and till and according to the petitioner that is the only source of income for the petitioner and his own family. 4.3 In the year 2002, the revenue authorities found some illegality in the land in question and therefore, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and initiated the proceedings on 16.4.2002 by way of R.O./Entry Revision Case No./25/02-03. 4.3 In the year 2002, the revenue authorities found some illegality in the land in question and therefore, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and initiated the proceedings on 16.4.2002 by way of R.O./Entry Revision Case No./25/02-03. Pursuant to the notice issued in respect of aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the authority and filed his reply. Ultimately, after hearing the parties, the Collector, Bhavnagar vide order dated 24.7.2006 cancelled the entry No. 809 dated 1.9.1995. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision application being Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Bhavan/13/2006 before the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad and even the aforesaid revision application also was rejected by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad vide order dated 24.8.2011. Hence, being aggrieved by and being dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Krunal Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings are initiated beyond the reasonable period of time as defined by the Division Bench of this Court. According to learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah, the entry which was mutated on 1.9.1995 and was certified on 6.10.1995 was taken into suo-motu revision after a period of seven years in the year 2002, by initiating proceedings under Section 108(6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. According to learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah, in view of the fact that the proceedings were initiated beyond the reasonable period of time, the proceedings were without jurisdiction and therefore, the same were without any authority and therefore, the same are required to be quashed and set aside. 6.1 It was also submitted by learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah that the land was never a Dharmada land and a Trust was never registered. Land was originally held by Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar, in its individual capacity and merely because the temple was there on the land, it cannot be said that the land was a Dharmada land or it was a trust land as none of the revenue record ever indicated that the land at any point of time was given by way of Dharmada to Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar or that any Trust for the land in question was registered as the land was a Trust property. He submitted that without there being any material to indicate that the land was a Dharmada land, the authority ought not to have come to the conclusion that it was a Dharmada land and Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar was holding the land in capacity of its administrator and therefore, the aforesaid sale was not a valid sale in the eyes of law and therefore, the authorities have committed an error by passing the impugned order and by cancelling the entry No.809 and vesting the land into Government. He submitted that even today, the land in question is in possession of the present petitioner and petitioner is utilizing the land for agricultural purpose. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah prayed for quashing and setting aside both the impugned orders. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda appearing for the respondent - State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the entry No.45 made in the year 1957, indicates that at the relevant point of time, there existed a temple of lord Shiva on the land in question and name of predecessor in title of the petitioner Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar is stated as Vahivatkarta of the temple. That itself is indicative of the fact that the land did not belong to Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar and he was only administrator of the aforesaid land. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda submitted that as the land was shown in the name of Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar as administrator, it cannot be said that it was owned by Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar in his personal capacity and therefore, the land can safely presumed to be a Dharmada land or a Trust land for which Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar had no right or authority to sell it on its own without obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. 7.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda further submitted that in view of above the proceedings were rightly initiated under Rule 108(6) by the Collector and therefore, both the impugned orders are absolutely just, legal and proper. However, as far as the question about exercise of such revisional power within a reasonable time is concerned, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda further submitted that in view of above the proceedings were rightly initiated under Rule 108(6) by the Collector and therefore, both the impugned orders are absolutely just, legal and proper. However, as far as the question about exercise of such revisional power within a reasonable time is concerned, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda submitted that such time was required to be considered from the date of knowledge of the authority and as soon as it came to the knowledge of the authority, the authority initiated suo-motu revision in good faith and therefore, merely on the ground that the suo-motu revisional powers were exercised beyond reasonable time when the land never belongs to Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar, this Court may not quash the order on the ground of delay only. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. Upon perusal of the record and more particularly, upon perusal of entry No.45 which was mutated in the year 1957, it is categorically stated that Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar is having possession of Shiv temple and he is the administrator of the said temple. However, except the aforesaid entry, there is no other material which would indicate that the land was a Dharmada land. Further, there is no registration of Trust which has come on record and therefore, this Court had orally directed learned Assistant Government Pleader to call for the original record from the concerned Collector office. Pursuant to which, the original record was produced before this Court today. Even on perusal of original record also, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda could not point out any material which would indicate that except for the entry No.45 there was any other material which would indicate that the land was given to aforesaid Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar either by way of charity (Dharmada) by someone or that there was any Trust created in respect of land in question and the land and the temple were Trust property. Not only that the record also indicates and it is on record that at the relevant point of time, when the land was inspected, the authority observed that at the relevant point of time, the temple ought not to have exist and today, there is no temple on the land in question. Not only that the record also indicates and it is on record that at the relevant point of time, when the land was inspected, the authority observed that at the relevant point of time, the temple ought not to have exist and today, there is no temple on the land in question. Which would indicate that the authorities claim that the land in question was a Dharmada land or it was a Trust land is without any foundation or basis, as there are no documentary evidence to indicate that the land in question was ever given by way of charity to the Bawaji Dhangar Bhagwangar or that it was a trust land and therefore, forfeiting the aforesaid land and vesting into Government on the ground that the land belongs to dharmada trust was unjustifiable. 9. Further, though the learned Assistant Government Pleader from the record could not satisfy this Court on merit even on technical ground of delay also. It is an undisputed fact that when the sale deed had taken place in the year 1972 for which revenue entry No. 809 was mutated in the year 1995 precisely on 1.9.1995 and was certified on 6.10.1995. The same was taken into suo-motu revision only after seven years thereafter in the year 2002. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Mehta Vrajlal Chhaganlal and 4 others Versus State of Gujarat and 2 others in Letters Patent Appeal No.2436 of 2017 dated 9.3.2022 has held that reasonable period would be three years from the date of mutation entry and therefore, admittedly in the instant case, the revisional powers are exercised beyond a period of three years i.e. after seven years and therefore, such exercise of powers beyond reasonable time also would render the proceedings vitiated and therefore, on both the counts, there is no justification for initiating the proceedings belatedly after a period of seven years as well as the order vesting the land into Government was based only on the assumption that the land was a dharmada land or a trust land but without there being any material, none of the claims of the State can be believed. 10. 10. Despite that the authorities have initiated the proceedings after a period of seven years from the date on which the mutation entry was mutated and certified on 6.10.1995 i.e. beyond reasonable period and without there being any basis the land was directed to be vested into Government that is how the authorities have committed grave error in passing the impugned order dated 24.8.2011 passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) Ahmedabad in Revision No.MVV/HKP/Bhavan/13 of 2006 as well as order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar in R.O./Entry Revision Case/25/02-03 and therefore, both the orders are unjust, improper and illegal and therefore, the same are required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, the same are quashed and set aside. Present petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.