( 1 ) MR. G. R. Shaikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf for the petitioner. Mr. Pandya, learned AGP appearing on behalf for the respondents. Though notices have been served to the respondent no. 1, but no one remains present on behalf of the respondent no. 1

( 2 ) IN the present petition, Rule has been issued by this Court on 12th September, 1990 and ad-interim relief in terms of para-9 (B) has been granted by this Court.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the giving rise to this petition are as under:the present petitioners are owners and occupants of Survey No. 149, admeasuring 5 Acre - 33 Guntha of Vadod, Taluka Choryashi, District Surat. The said land was of the ownership and occupancy of respondent no. 1 Maniben widow of Prabhubhai. The widow Maniben stood a surity i. e. a guarantor for one Shri Makanbhai Mavajibhai who had taken loan from Kudsad Vibha Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Limited of Karjan, Taluka Kamrej of District Surat. That the society took steps for the recovery of its dues under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act and ultimately a certificate under section 106 of the said Act was issued and consequent thereupon the Special Recovery Officer, Surat put the disputed land of the ownership and occupancy of Maniben for public auction. The public auction was held on 08/05/1979. The present petitioners were the highest bidders and their bid was Rs. 66,000. 00 which was accepted and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Special Recovery Officer in favour of the present petitioners dated 08/05/79. The said certificate in respect of acceptance of the bid and the title of the present petitioners. The said certificate has been issued by the Special Recovery Officer dated 14th July, 1979 regarding the purchase in favour of the present petitioners. So there are two certificates issued by the Special Recovery Tribunal dated 8th June, 1979 and 14th July, 1979. In pursuance to these certificates, the possession was also handed over and delivered to the present petitioners on 23rd May, 1979. The possession receipt was also issued by the petitioners on 23rd May, 1979 and necessary entry in the Village Form VI to this effect in the light of two certificates was effected being entry no. 830 dated 8th May, 1979. The present respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector and Choryashi Prant has decided vide its order No. RTS Appeal No. 31 of 1986 dated 31st August, 1988, after the period of seven years. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31st August, 1988, the petitioners have presented a revision application being Revision Application No. 115 of 1988 before the Collector, Surat. The Collector, Surat has dismissed the said revision application on 13th January, 1989 and confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector passed on 31st August, 1988. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed revision application before the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad and the said authority has also dismissed the said revision application dated 29th November, 1989. Against the present petition, no any reply has been filed by other respondent no. 1 or respondent no. 2.

( 4 ) MR. G. R. Shaikh, learned advocate for the petitioners has raised important question that whether the State Government and all the Revenue Officer be permitted to exercise the revisional and or appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code read with rule 108 (5) and rule 108 (6) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, after an expiry of more than seven years and in that light a transaction which is irreversible can be set aside. Mr. G. R. Shaikh has relied upon the some of authority of the Apex Court as well as this Court which are as under :- (I) 10 GLR 992, (ii) 11 GLR 307, (iii) 12 GLR 156, (iv) 17 GLR 464, (v) 25 (2) GLR 1225, (vi) 88 GLH 13 U. J. and (vii) 21 GLT 268and also leading case on the subject pronounced upon by the Apex Court reported in AIR 1969 S. C. 1297 and AIR 1983 S. C. 1239. Mr.