( 1 ) THE order passed by the Dy. Collector at Valsad (the first authority for convenience) on 12/09/1984 in R. T. S. Revision no. 17 of 1984 as affirmed in appeal by the Collector at Valsad on 2 8/05/1985 in R. T. S. Appeal No. 7 of 1984 as affirmed in revision by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department at Ahmedabad on 27/04/1989 in Revision Application No. 302 of 1985 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the Dy. Collector at Valsad declared the sale in respect of the land bearing survey No. 81 admeasuring 9 Acres 12 Gunthas situated in village tanachhia, taluka Dharampur. district Valsad (the disputed land for convenience) entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to be illegal and invalid.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. The disputed land originally belonged to respondent No. 1. The petitioner purchased it from him by a registered sale deed executed on 15/05/1978. The necessary mutation entry in the revenue records with respect thereto was posted on 15/09/1978 and was certified by the competent officer on 17/08/1979. It appears that more than five years thereafter respondent No. 1 made one application to the first authority for cancellation of the said mutation entry made in favour of the present petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to the disputed land. Thereupon the first authority undertook an inquiry in that regard. The proceedings came to be registered as R. T. S. Revision No. 17 of 1984. Thereupon the necessary show cause notice was issued some time in June or July, 1984. la the course of inquiry, the first authority found the sale transaction between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 with respect to the disputed land to be in contravention of Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for brief ). In that view of the matter, by his order passed on 12/09/1984 in R. T. S. Revision no. 17 of 1984, the first authority ordered cancellation of the said mutation entry. Its copy is at Annexure c to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Collector at Valsad. His appeal came to be registered as R. T. S. Appeal No. 7 of 1984. After hearing the parties, by his order passed on 28/05/1985 in R. T. S. Appeal No. 7 of 1984, the Collector at Valsad dismissed it. Its copy is at Aanexure d to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Lands Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief) through the Special Secretary, Revenue Department at Ahmedabad. His revisional application came to be registered as Revision Application No. 302 of 1985. After hearing the parties, by his order passed on 27/04/1989, the revisional authority rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure e to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the legality of the impugned order at Annexure a to this petition as affirmed in appeal and in revision by the impugned orders at Annexures d and e respectively to this petition.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid narration of facts makes it clear that the transaction between the parties was entered into on 15/05/1978 and it was mutated in the revenue records in the petitioners name on 15/07/1978 and that entry was certified by the competent officer on 17/08/1979. Tne proceedings for its cancellation were initiated more than five years thereafter some time in 1984. It appears that the powers exercised by the first authority were suo motu revisional powers for cancellation of the entry though at the instance of respondent No. 1.

( 4 ) IT is a settled principle of law that suo motu revisional powers have to be exercised within reasonable time in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Guj