( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Vyas for Mr. B. S. Patel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. L. R. Pujari, learned AGP appearing for the respondent authorities.

( 2 ) IN the present petition, Rule has been issued by this Court on 23rd July, 1990 and ad-interim relief in terms of para-11 (c) has been granted by this Court.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the giving rise to this petition are as under. THE present petitioner was owner of the land in village Umran, Taluka and District Bharuch in the year 1979-80. The land has been received by the petitioner from one Bai Mani, widow of Lallubhai Ramdas. The gift deed was executed and permission for the said gift deed was also obtained from respondent No. 1s office. It is also stated that the petitioner was personally cultivateing the land for a long period but since the husband of the petitioner was serving at Samani, Taluka Amod as a teacher and was residing at village Samani and there was a considerable distance between village Samani and village Umram and because of this, the petitioner was not in position to cultivate theland personally and ultimately, the petitioner sold the land and decided to purchase land in village Samani itself. The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell on 11-5-1979 and the said agreement has been executed between the petitioner and the mother of respondent No. 4 executed the sale deed in favour of the petitoner on 7-4-80. The sale deed had been mutated in the record of rights by the revenue authorities on 23-5-80 and the entry was certified on 29-7-80 by revenue authorities. The petitioner was cultivating the land without any disturbance from any of the respoondents. The petitioner has invested considerable amount for development of the land and agircultural income was also the main source of income for the present petitioner.

( 4 ) THE petitioner had received a show cause notice under Section 108 (6) of the Land Revenue Rules on 5-3-1988 issued by the repondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitoiner was not an agriculturist at the time of execution of the sale deed eventhough the entry was cetified on 29th July, 1980 and the said transaction was illegal and respondent No. 1 issued the show cause notice to cancel the entry. The Deputy Collector, Bharuch who had issued the show cause notice dated 5th March, 1988 has proceeded in nqury under the revison of Rule 108 (6) and having come to the conclusion by order dated 3rd May, 1988 cancelled the entry as it was violative of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and also directed to the Mamlatdar to initiate proceeding against the peitioner under the provsions of Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act. Against that order, the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the Collector, Bharuch wherein, the Collector, Bharuch had dismissed the said appeal No. 47 / 88 on 15th September, 1989. Thereafter the petitioner has approached the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and the said revision was also rejected by the authority by order dated 28th June, 1990. Against that, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has raised contention about unreasonable delay for initiating inquiry proceedings under Rule 108 (6) in reply to the show cause notice dated 5ht March, 1988 by reply dated 5ht April, 1988. The question of unreasonable delay has been specifically raised in the reply. However, none of the authority has considered any contention of unreaonable delay on the part of the respondent authority for initiating the proceedings under Rule 108 (6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

( 6 ) MR. VYAS, learned advocate for the petitioner has raised important question that the respondent authorities have committed error in exercising of jurisdiction in reopening the revenue entry of 2659 after lapse of more than 8 years in contravention of the clear judgment of Supreme Court reported in Raghav Nathas case in 10 G. L. R. page 992. Mr. Vyas has submitted that one contention i