( 1 ) THE order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land-6 Plan) at Himatnagar (respondent No. 2 herein) on 24/12/1982 in Land-6 Case no. 1299 of 1980 as also the order passed by him on 25/03/1983 in that very proceeding as affirmed in revision by the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), revenue Department at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) are under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order of 24/12/1982, respondent No. 2 declared the sale transaction entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 herein on 2/01/1976 with respect to one parcel of land admeasuring 638. 30 square metres from survey No. 145 (Part) situated in Village Charimala, taluka Bhiloda, district Sabarkantha (the disputed land for convenience) to be invalid. By his impugned order of 25/03/1983, respondent No. 3 imposed penalty of Rs. 600. 00 on the petitioner herein for breach of Sec. 73aa read with Sec. 73a of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the code for brief ).

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land originally belonged to respondent No. 3 herein. The petitioner purchased it under a sale deed executed on 22/01/1976 for Rs. 600. 00. It appears that Sec. 73-AA of the Code came to be inserted by Gujarat Act No. 37 of 1980 (the amending Act for brief) with effect from 26-12-1980. The sale transaction entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 herein on 22/01/1976 was found to be in contravention of Sec. 73-AA of the Code. Thereupon, respondent no. 2 issued one show cause notice of 19/11/1982 with respect to the proceeding under Sec. 73-AA read with Sec. 73-A of the Code. The proceeding arising therefrom came to be registered as Land-6 Case No. 1299 of 1980. After holding the necessary inquiry, by his order passed on 24/12/1982, respondent no. 2 came to the conclusion that the sale transaction in question was in contravention of Sec. 73-AA read with Sec. 73-A of the Code and it was, therefore, declared to be invalid and the land was ordered to vest in the State Government as respondent no. 3 was disinclined to have it back. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice was issued sometime in January 1983 calling upon the petitioner why fine should not be imposed on him for breach of Sec. 73- aa read with Sec. 73-A of the Code. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. Thereafter, by his order passed on 25/03/1983, respondent No. 2 imposed penalty of Rs. 600. 00 on the petitioner herein for breach of Sec. 73-AA read with sec. 73-A of the Code. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 1 under Sec. 211 of the Code. By his order passed on 30/05/1983 in the aforesaid revisional proceeding, respondent No. 1 rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the orders at Annexures-B and C to this petition as affirmed in revision by the order at Annexure-A to this petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has made a grievance that the impugned order has been passed more than six years after the date of the sale transaction and it could not have been passed beyond a period of three years in view of Sec. 73- aa (4) of the Code. I think this submission urged before me by learned Advocate shri Vakharia for the petitioner has to be stated only to be rejected. The reason therefor is quited simple. Section 73-AA of the Code came to be brought on the statute book by virtue of the Amending Act with effect from 26/12/1980. That date has been referred to as "the said date for the purposes of sub-sec. (4) thereof. The prescribed period of limitation of three years has to be counted from "the said date" or the date of sale transaction