( 1 ) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 12. 10. 1998 and 25. 1. 1999/1. 2. 1999 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad and the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal), respectively, produced by the petitioner at Annexures e and g to the petition. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State, which is at Annexure g to the petition (page 32 of the compilation ). By the impugned order, the Secretary has remanded the matter to the Collector for taking fresh decision as per the observations made in the remand order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a purchaser of agricultural land. The said land was purchased by the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 27. 4. 1981. On the basis of such sale, even a revenue entry was also mutated in the name of the present petitioner as purchaser on 5. 5. 1981. The revenue authorities were aware about the aforesaid transaction since entry was mutated in his name. However, for a considerable time, proceedings on the ground that the transaction in question is void in view of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 were not initiated by the revenue authorities.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on behalf of the seller, after more than 17 years, an application was made to the Collector, for taking proceedings under the Fragmentation Act and for summary eviction of the petitioner-original petitioner. The Collector had set aside the sale on the ground that the same is hit by the provisions of the Fragmentation Act and order of Summary Eviction was passed against the petitioner under Section 9 (3) of the said Act. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision application before the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeal ). The Additional Chief Secretary came to the conclusion that the transaction in question being void, the same can be challenged at any point of time and, therefore, the contention on the part of the petitioner, to the effect that proceedings should not have been initiated after a period of 17 years, was negatived by the Secretary. However, he remanded the matter for the limited purpose of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the authority whether, in between, the petitioner has made any development on the disputed property, as well as to find out whether any other heirs are required to be heard, etc. The said orders are challenged by the petitioner. The petition is admitted and the impugned order is stayed by the Court.

( 4 ) MR. PATEL for the petitioner argued that initiation of proceedings after a period of 17 years is bad. There is no evidence for coming to the conclusion that any notice was served to the original owner regarding the concerned entry, treating the land in question as a fragment, as required by Section 6 (2) of the Act. He also submitted that, in any case, at the instance of the present respondent No. 3, proceedings should not have been initiated, as, the seller, after having taken full consideration, cannot be permitted to initiate proceedings. On behalf of the State Government, the order of the Secretary is supported by Mr. M. K. Dagli, learned AGP. Mr. J. M. Patel, who is appearing for the original seller, has also supported the said judgment, and he also submitted that it cannot be said that the seller has no locus standi to challenge the said transaction.

( 5 ) MR. J. M. Patel, appearing for the respondent-seller, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Patel Jividas Trikamdas and Ors. v. District Collector, Mehsana and Ors. , XXXVII (2) GLR 688, wherein this Court has held as under :-". . . . . . . . . 3a. The learned Counsel Mr. Pahwa appearing for the petitioners has raised the following contentions : (1) That the delay in quashing the sale transaction is more than 19 years and ther