( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21-7-1979 passed by the Government under Sec. 35 of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of the Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) confirming the order of the Deputy Collector, radhanpur passed on 8/01/1979 in Consolidation Case No. 12 of 1978 by which he imposed a fine of Rs. 50 on the owners of the land for having effected a void transfer holding that the transfer was in violation of Sec. 31 (b) of the said Act.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner a portion of Survey No. 46 of village mitha was sold to the petitioner by deceased Julkhan orally in 1958-59 and by a simple writing in 1964. The Deputy Collector, Radhanpur initiated inquiry under Sec. 9 of the said Act and held that the transfer was invalid. An appeal was filed being Appeal No. 180 of 1977 against that order before the Government and the Special Secretary by his order dated 18/04/1978 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for inquiry in light of observations made by him in the judgment for deciding the matter under the provisions of Sec. 9 of the said Act. The Deputy Collector, radhanpur issued fresh notices to the parties on 11-7-1978 and heard the matter again coming to the conclusion that the conveyance deed was executed on 1-6-1964 in respect of the disputed land and since the document was not on stamp paper the Collector had on 13-7-1976 ordered recovery of requisite stamp duty. He found that the conveyance deed was executed after coming into force of the Consolidation Scheme in the said village. He, therefore, found that the holding could not have been sub-divided in view of the provisions of Sec. 31 (l) (b) of the said Act. The Deputy collector, therefore, found that it was a fit case for taking action under sec. 9 of the said Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 50. 00ordering the land to be restored on the ground that the transfer was void. In the revision application the Government confirmed the finding that the sale which was effected on 1-7-1964 was subsequent to the introduction of Consolidation scheme in the village on 29-12-1960 and dismissed the revision application.

( 3 ) AT the hearing of this petition the only point which was urged by the learned Counsel Mr. G. R. Shaikh appearing for the petitioner was that the Deputy Collector could not have exercised jurisdiction under Sec. 9 (2) and (3) of the said Act after a lapse of over 12 years from the date when the conveyance deed was executed in favour of the petitioner transferring a portion of the said block of land.

( 4 ) RELIANCE was placed by the learned Advocate Mr. Shaikh on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Raghav natha, reported in (1969) X GLR 992 in support of his contention that powers could not have been exercised by the authority under Sec. 9 of the said Act after a lapse of about 12 years from the date of the transaction. The Supreme Court was concerned in that case with the provisions of Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which did not prescribe any period of limitation. The revisional jurisdiction was sought to be exercised by the Divisional Commissioner against the order of the Collector granting permission for N. A. use of the land. The Commissioner had set aside the order of the Collector more than a year after it was passed. In that context the Supreme Court held that though there was no period of limitation prescribed under Sec. 211 of the Land Revenue Code, the revisional power must be exercised in reasonable time which must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised. It will be seen that though the subsequent decisions of this court tend to apply this ratio to the orders of the authorities dealing with void transactions, the Supreme Court was concerned only with the exercise of revisional powers against an order issued by a competent authority under sec. 65 of the Land Revenue Code. In