( 1 ) MR. PATEL, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised several contentions, but for the purpose of disposal of this petition, the following question is only required to be considered :"whether initiation of proceedings under Sec. 84c of the Tenancy Act after lapse of considerable time would amount to arbitrary exercise of power and thus bar the exercise of power under Sec. 84c of the Tenancy Act?"

( 2 ) ). This Court is not inclined to consider the other aspects as in view of the settled legal position with regard to delay, this matter is required to be disposed of.

( 3 ) ). Transfer of Agricultural land bearing Survey No. 48 admeasuring 1 acre 20 Gunthas situated in the sim of village Ranasan, Taluka Vijapur, Dist. Mehsana is the subject-matter of the present petition. The petitioner, claiming to be agriculturist was cultivating the agricultural land and since the land was not enough for maintenance of his family, he purchased another land bearing survey No. 361 admeasuring 3 Acres 25 Gunthas situated in the sim of village fatehwadi, Taluka Daskroi, Dist. Ahmedabad by a registered sale-deed dated 19-5-1978.

( 4 ) ). The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Daskroi by invoking sec. 84c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) initiated proceedings suo motu and held that the petitioner was not entitled to purchase the said land situated at village Fatehwadi. It is argued before this Court that the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, without considering the contentions raised by. the petitioner, passed an order on 17-1-1983 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to purchase the land in question and directed vesting of the land in favour of the State.

( 5 ) ). Being aggrieved by the said order passed by Mamlatdar and Agricultural land Tribunal, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 109 of 1983 before the deputy Collector which was dismissed by order dated 24-2-1986, confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal. The Deputy collector also ordered forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 12,000. 00 received by respondent No. 3, being the amount of consideration in respect of the said land.

( 6 ) ). In view of the above order passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioner herein approached Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring Revision Application no. 383 of 1986. Respondent No. 3 herein also preferred Revision Application no. 442 of 1986 before the Tribunal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The Tribunal by a common judgment, dismissed the revision Application on 28-6-1988. It appears that the order was passed without hearing the respondent No. 3. The matter was remanded. Further, on remand, the order was confirmed by the lower authority. It is against the order passed by the Tribunal this petition is preferred.

( 7 ) ). It is required to be noted that in the instant case, the sale-deed was executed on 19-5-1978 and it was registered with the concerned authorities. It is submitted that Sec. 84c could have been invoked by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable period, and it is not open for the Mamlatdar to exercise the powers suo motu at any time. Sub-clause (1) of Sec. 84c of the Tenancy Act is relevant for the purchase, which reads as under :-"84c (1 ). Where in respect of the transfer or acquisition of any land made on or after the commencement of the Amending Act, 1955 the Mamlatdar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of this Act, the Mamlatdar shall issue a notice and hold an inquiry as provided for in Sec. 84b and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is or is not invalid. "

( 8 ) ). Thus, the Mamlatdar can issue notice and hold inquiry as provided for in Sec. 84b of the Act. No period of limitation is prescribed in Sec. 84c or there is no other p