( 1 ) RULE in Special Civil Application No. 1717 of 2004. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Ld. Addl. Advocate General and Mr. K V Shelat, Ld. Advocate for respondents waive service of rule. These two petitions have been placed before us in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge [coram : M R Shah, J. ] dated 11th August, 2004. By said order the learned Judge has directed that these petitions be placed before the Division Bench since the controversy involved in these petitions is identical to the controversy that forms subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 5742 of 1984, which is already referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge [ Coram : A N Divecha, J. as he then was] by order dated 4th April, 1996. The reference has been made by the learned Single Judge by framing the question to be decided as under :-"can inordinate delay come in the way of authority acting under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 in declaring some sale transaction to be invalid on the ground of contravention of the relevant provisions contained therein? The reference has been made in view of two conflicting decisions of this Court on the same point. According to the reference there is conflict between decisions rendered in the case of Koli Nagjibhai Varjan v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 1992 (1) G. L. R. p. 14 [coram : R. K. Abichandani, J. ] and in the case of Ranchhodbhai Lallubhai Patel v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 (2) G. L. R. p. 1255 [coram : S. B. Majmudar, J. ]. The view taken in Ranchhodbhai Lallubhai Patels case is that power for annulling a transaction in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] cannot be exercised after inordinate delay; whereas the view taken in the case of Koli Nagjibhai Varjan is that normally the power should be exercised within a reasonable time where by law no period of limitation is prescribed. However, where transaction is statutorily void and non-est, the Court cannot validate the transaction by holding that due to inordinate delay power of annulment cannot be exercised.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in short can be stated as under :-2. 1 it is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing survey no. 1084 of village Vejalpur, Taluka City [now survey no. 410 of village Jodhpur] District Ahmedabad was owned and possessed by one Nathiben, widow of Atmaram Mulajibhai. Nathiben intended to sell the said land. At that time the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 was in force and, therefore, she applied for requisite permission from the competent authority to sell the land. The said permission was granted to her vide order dated 18th April, 1981. Since her way to sell the land got cleared, she entered into a sale transaction with the petitioners and sold the land to them as a compact block by executing 8 different registered sale-deeds, all dated 29th June, 1981. Nathiben received the total consideration of Rs. 3. 5 lacs for the same. It is the say of the petitioners that they had purchased the entire area of survey no. 1084 without effecting any division or creating any fragment in any manner whatsoever. 2. 2. Subsequently the petitioners took steps to enter their names in the revenue records. It is their say that the revenue authorities, after examining in detail the transactions, effected the mutation entry in the revenue record as one compact block of survey no. 1084. It is also the say of the petitioners that the mutation entry was certified by the competent authority on the ground that no fragment was created at any point of time. Record of the petition shows that pursuant to the registered sale-deeds mutation entries nos. 4413 to 4419 and 4422 came to be effected in village form no. 6 on 6th July, 1981. These entries were certified on 11th August, 1981. It also appears that inquiry was made in accor