( 1 ) MR. H. M. Prachchhak, learned Advocate waives service of Rule for respondent No. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being quasi- judicial authorities, no notice is required to be issued to them. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition has been taken up for final disposal and is being disposed of by this judgment.

( 2 ) WHAT is challenged in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is the judgment and order dated 28-3-2002 passed by the Principal Secretary, revenue Department (Appeals) of the State Government dismissing the petitioners revision application under Sec. 135l (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (the Code or the B. L. R. Code for brevity) read with Rule 108 (6a) of the Bombay land Revenue Rules, 1921 (the Rules or the B. L. R. Rules, for brevity ).

( 3 ) THE facts leading to filing of the petition are as under :-3. 1 The dispute between the parties is about land admeasuring Acres 4, 9 Gunthas in Survey No. 128 and land admeasuring Acres 4, 2 Gunthas in survey No. 124 of the City of Rajkot. Both the parcels of land are hereinafter referred to as "the land" or "the land in question". The revenue record indicated that prior to the controversy, the land was mutated in the name of Ladha Ratna. Ladha Ratna expired on 25-4-1978. On 30-4-1978, an application was given by Popat Ladhabhai to the City Mamlatdar, Rajkot for mutating his name in the revenue record regarding the land in question. The land was mutated by entry No. 3635 in the name of Popat Ladhabhai and was certified by the Circle officer, Rajkot on 7-6-1978. 3. 2 On 22-9-1997, respondent No. 4 herein, Jivtiben Shivabhai Keralia, daughter of late Ladha Ratna filed an appeal under Rule 108 (5) of the Bombay land Revenue Rules before the Assistant Collector, Rajkot challenging the aforesaid entry No. 3635 and praying that the order made at entry No. 91 in the succession register en 7-6-1978, on the basis of which the above entry was made, be set aside and the appellant (i. e. respondent No. 4 herein) be declared as the owner of the land. The Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 13-10-1999/4-4-2000 (Annexure "d") on the ground that the appeal was time-barred and that no sufficient and reasonable cause was shown for condoning the delay of 19 years. In the meantime, during pendency of appeal before the Assistant Collector, Popatbhai expired on 30-6-1999. 3. 3 Thereafter, on 20-9-2001, respondent No. 4 herein preferred an appeal before the Collector, Rajkot for challenging the aforesaid order of the Assistant collector. By judgment and order dated 27-11-2001 (Annexure "e"), the collector, Rajkot allowed the appeal and held that Popat Ladha had claimed ownership over the land in question under a registered Will dated 18-12-1969 and a registered adoption deed dated 4-2-1972, but at the time of his adoption by Ladha Ratna, Popat Khima was aged 41 years. Therefore, the adoption was illegal in view of the provisions of Sec. 10 (iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956 which provides that the person to be adopted must not be more than 15 years of age. As regards the Will, the Collector observed that the land in question was obtained by Ladha Ratna at a partition, and therefore, it was an ancestral property. Only self-acquired property could be bequeathed by a Will. Popatbhai had not produced a probate from a competent Court of law along with the Will, and therefore, the Will could not be relied upon. According to the affidavit of respondent No. 4, she was the sole legal heir of Ladha Ratna being his daughter. Although, she was alive and she had not given any release or waiver, entry No. 3635 was made without Serving respondent no. 4 with a notice under Rule 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. Hence, such an illegal entry could be set aside without any bar of limitation. The Collector accordingly directed the subordinate revenue authorities to cancel entry No. 3635 and to enter