( 1 ) THIS petition purporting to be a petition under Art. 226 of the constitution read with Art. 227 of the Constitution challenges the judgment and order dated 24-3-1998 passed by the State Government in Revision Application No. SRD/ con/ahmedabad/12 of 1995 under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner sold the land in question admeasuring 1 Acre and 2 Gunthas to respondent No. 3 herein by a registered sale deed dated 16-10-1978. The mutation entry to that effect being entry No. 1491 was made in the revenue record on 20-12-1978 and was certified on 8-10-1979. R. T. S. team was of the view that the land in question was a fragment and, therefore, the proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Collector on 13-6-1993. The Deputy Collector held by order dated 30-6-1993 that the land in question was a fragment and the transaction in question was in violation of Sec. 7 of the Act and was, therefore, void as per Sec. 9 of the act. The matter was carried in revision before the Government which remanded the matter for holding a detailed inquiry on the question whether the land was irrigated, whether the notice under Sec. 6 (2) of the Act was served upon the original owner and thereafter the Deputy Collector was to hear the parties and decide the matter afresh. Pursuant to that order of remand, the Deputy Collector held the inquiry and after hearing the parties held in his order dated 31-5-1996 that the notice under Sec. 6 (2) of the Act was served on the owner (i. e. , the petitioner herein) and that the land in question was a fragment and the transaction in question was in violation of Sec. 7 of the Act and, therefore, void under Sec. 9 of the Act. The consequential order for removing respondent No. 3 from the land in question was also passed.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the above order of the Deputy Collector, respondent No. 3 preferred Revision Application No. 12 of 1995 before the State Government. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the Additional Chief secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department exercising the powers of the revisional authority allowed the Revision Application on the following grounds :- (i) The proceedings were initiated after a period of 15 years which was far beyond the reasonable time during which such proceedings could have been initiated. (ii) The land in question was irrigated land and, therefore, since it was more than 20 Gunthas in area, it was not a fragment. It is the aforesaid order of the Government which is under challenge in the present Special Civil Application.

( 4 ) AT the hearing of this petition, Mr. S. H. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Ranchhodbhai Lallubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat , 1984 (2) GLR 1225 and on the decision rendered by this Court on 29-2-1988 in special Civil Application No. 4583 of 1985 because in the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Patel Jividas Trikamdas v. District Collector, mehsana , 1996 (2) GLR 688, this Court has held that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, 1995 suppl. (3) SCC 249, the ratio of the judgments of this Court in the case of ranchhodbhai (supra) and the other case have been watered down. It is submitted that in the aforesaid case of Patel Jividas Trikamdas (supra), this Court had held that even if the proceedings under Sec. 9 of the Act were initiated after a period of 20 years, if the transaction was found to be void being in violation of the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act, the purchaser cannot defend such void transaction on the ground of lapse of a number of years. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the land in question was an irrigated land. It is submitt