RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

One Mr. Mahendra kumar Pitambarbhai Doshi is before this Court praying that :

"9A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure 'A' dated 26-7-2004 passed by the present respondent No. 1 confirming the order dated 24-1-1994 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar cancelling the N.A. permission by initiating suo motu proceeding."

2. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Survey No. 265 of new tenure of Village Thangadh, Taluka Chotila was given to one Jagmal Vasta by way of 'Santhani'. It is, thereafter, that on 16-4-1980 the said land was converted into old tenure land by an order being Order No. JMN/ 1293/80 by the Deputy Collector on an application given by Shri Kishorebhai Girdharbhai Sheth (predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner, as the case of the petitioner was that he had purchased this land from Shri Kishorebhai Girdharbhai Sheth). Thereafter, on 17-10-1980 the said Kishorebhai paid premium as per order bearing No. JMN/400l/80. The case of the petitioner is that since then, the land in question is non-agricultural land (as transpires from the order passed by the Collector that this non-agricultural land has remained only on record, otherwise, the land was continued to be put to agricultural use).

3. Thereafter, the Collector, Surendranagar, initiated suo motu proceedings against order dated 17-10-1980 whereby the Deputy Collector, Limbdi converted the land into non-agricultural land. The Collector fixed the hearing on 8-11-1993 and after serving notice, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner appeared through his Advocate on 24-8-1994 and filed his reply on 24-111994. The Collector after hearing the parties passed the order, which is under challenge in this petition. The said order was confirmed by the Government in Revision Application filed under Sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on 25-2-2002 along with an application for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned. The matter was taken up for consideration and the authorities after hearing the parties rejected the said application vide order dated 26-7-2004.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Collector dated 24-11-1994 upsetting the order passed by the Deputy Collector granting N.A. permission on 17-10-1980, is taken in the suo motu revision after about 14 years, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside, along with the order passed in Revision Application on 26-7-2004.

4.1. Prima facie, the submission sounds to be attractive, more so because there are certain decisions which do say that the order should not be taken in suo motu revision after a lapse of reasonable time, but then the question which is arise for consideration is whether said 'principle' will be applicable to the order impugned in this matter. In the present case, the petitioner, in any case, cannot be said to have any right whatsoever to challenge the order in question because he purchased the land in question by registered sale-deed dated 7-3-1996, i.e. much after the Collector passed the order on 24-11-1994. Besides that, the revision application was filed after 8 years, i.e. on 25-2-2002, after the order was passed by the Collectur, which came to be decided by judgment and order dated 26-7-2004. It is thereafter, that the petitioner approached this Court by the present petition.

5. To take a bird's eye-view of the facts of the case, the land was originally granted to one Jagmal Vasta, which was converted into old tenure from new tenure by order dated 16-4-1980, and thereafter, the Deputy Collector granted N.A. permission by order dated 17-10-1980. It is, thereafter, that the Collector took the order of Deputy Collector in suo motu revision and cancelled the same by order dated 24-11-1994, against which a revision was filed only on 25-2-2002, which came to be rejected b