( 1 ) IN this petition, purporting to be under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Co-operative Society has challenged the order Annexure c dated 30-1-1988 passed by the Colllector, Surat in Appeal No. 427 of 1987 and the confirming order by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, annexure b, in Appeal No. 12 of 1988 under the provisions of the Bombay land Revenue Code and Bombay Land Revenue Rules.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-Society was registered on 7/08/1973. According to the petitioner the land in question bearing Survey No. 159/2 belonged to ranchhodbhai Parshottamdas, Ishwarlal Parshottamdas and Chhaganlal parshottamdas jointly. The said Ranchhodbhai Parshottamdas had guaranteed repayment of loan taken by one Laxmiben Chhotubhai of Ambetha, Tal. Olpad who had taken loan from Shri Ambetha Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli ltd. As the debt was not paid the Society took steps for recovery of its dues under the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and ultimately a certificate under Sec. 106 of the said Act was issued. The Special Recovery officer, Surat held public auction of Survey No. 159/2 admeasuring about 4 acres on 28/04/1981. The petitioners bid was the highest in the auction and a sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner for a consideration of 2,45,000/ -.

( 3 ) ALL the 77 members of the petitioner-Society contributed towards the cost of the land. Mutation was effected on the basis of this sale transaction in the record of rights and Entry No. 2226 was certified on 5-7-1983 by the Competent authority under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner-Society got the land levelled and sub-plotted and got plans prepared and submitted for approval of the Surat Municipal corporation. After approval of the plan by the Corporation in April, 1984, the petitioner-Society started construction on the land according to the plan. The petitioner-Society completed the construction of about 60 tenaments and row houses, carried out drainage work, plumbing and water lining as well as construction of internal and approach roads, street-lighting, internal electric fittings, doors and window fittings and plastering and about 60 houses have been occupied since 1987.

( 5 ) IN the meantime Entry No. 2226 was taken in suo motu revision by the Assistant Collector who was pleased to pass an ex parte order on 2-12-1985 for cancelling the entry without informing or hearing the petitioners. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision application before Special Secretary, ahmedabad who by an order dated 13/04/1987 directed the Collector, surat to decide the application of the petitioner-Society on merits as an appeal under Rule 108 (5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The Collector by his order dated 30-1-1988 confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector and the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue department dismissed the petitioners Revision Application on 29-11-1989. It is these orders of the Collector and Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue department that have been challenged in this petition as ultra vires and arisen from misconception of the legal provisions.

( 6 ) MR. M. I. Hawa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner- society submits that the Revenue Authorities had no power to cancel an entry certified by a competent authority after unreasonable delay and that the Revenue Authorities acting under the Bombay Land Revenue Rules cannot exercise the powers conferred on competent authorities under the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. Mr. Hawa relies on Sec. 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act as well as Rule 108 of the bombay Land Revenue Rules and a series of judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court on the question of unreasonable delay in exercise of revisional powers.

( 7 ) IN the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, reported in AIR 1969 SC 1297 : [1969 GLR 992] the Su