1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the order dated 14.12.98 passed by respondent No.1, Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), State of Gujarat as well as the order dated 04.09.1996 passed by the Collector, Surat in sou motu proceedings. Facts in brief may be noted at the outset.

2. The petitioners as well as the respondents No.4 and 5 are relatives as uncle and nephew; they are heirs of the common ancestor. The record of the case reveals that there was a family settlement amongst the parties to the proceedings regarding the H.U.F. property.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid family settlement, more particularly in execution of clause 4 at page No.7 of the aforesaid family settlement, entry No.1279 in Village Form No.6 was entered in the revenue record maintained by Talati of Village : Unn, Taluka: Choryasi, District : Surat. Thereafter, the Deputy Mamlatdar after verifying the deed of family settlement issued notice under Section 135(d) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code to all concerned and after recording the statements of all concerned certified the aforesaid entry No.1279 on 27.04.1989 and the same, was running in the revenue record, accordingly.

4. It further emerges from the record that on 26.06.1996, after a lapse of about seven years, the Collector, Surat under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules initiated proceedings of suo-motu revision by serving a notice that the aforesaid entry is in breach of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Sections 2(6) and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and Rule 36(1)(f) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules.

5. Upon the aforesaid notice, the Collector, Surat vide his order dated 04.09.1996 cancelled entry No.1279 dated 18.01.1989 holding that the aforesaid entry was entered in breach of the provisions of Section 2(6) and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act read with Rule 36(1)(f) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules as well as the Hindu Succession Act.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present petitioner approached the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Gandhinagar by way of preferring revision under Section 108(6)(a) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules. The Special Secretary by his order dated 14.12.1998 dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Collector.

7. Precisely, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, confirming the action of exercising the powers of suo-motu revision by the Collector, Surat the present petitioners have approached this Court challenging both the orders by way of filing the present petition.

8. Heard Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. H.B. Punani, learned AGP for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Ms. Khyati Hathi, learned advocate for the respondents No.4 and 5.

9. Learned advocate for the petitioners has contended that the exercise of suo-motu powers of revision undertaken by the Collector after a long period of seven years is bad in law and without jurisdiction. He has contended that the Collector, Surat is not authorized to issue the notice to the parties to the proceedings for the alleged breach of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act as well as Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. He has contended that there are number of judgments rendered by this Court that while exercising sou-motu revisional powers under Rule 108(6), the Collector has no power to delve into breach of provisions of other law, which the Collector is not empowered to look into.

10. Learned advocate for the petitioners has further argued that as the Collector was not authorized to invoke and exercise suo-motu revisional powers, the order passed by the Collector, is without jurisdiction and illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, learned advocat