B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. The present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.03.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2- Collector in N.A. Case No. 19 of 2007-08, as well as against the order dated 03/05.03.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Revision Application No. 18 of 2010. Learned Advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi for Mr. P.P. Majmudar after arguing for sometime, does not press for the prayer for setting aside the order dated 27.03.2008 at this juncture, and confines his challenge to the order dated 3/5.03.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1, by which the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the Revision Application has been rejected.

2. The present petitioner had sought to challenge the order dated 27.03.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 granting NA permission to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under the provision contained in Gujarat Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by filing Revision Application under Section 211 of the said Act before respondent No. 1. The petitioner alongwith the said Revision Application had also filed an Application seeking condonation of delay, which had purportedly occurred in filing the Revision Application. The application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed by the respondent No. 1 resultantly the Revision Application has been dismissed vide the impugned order, against which the present petition is filed.

3. It is sought to be submitted by Mr. Nishit Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211 of the said Act for filing the Revision application, however the office of the respondent No. 1 as a matter of practice is insisting the party-applicant to file application for condonation of delay, if the applicant had challenged the impugned order of the lower authority one year after passing of the same. He also submitted that in the instant case the petitioner was called upon by the respondent No. 1 for the hearing of the application for condonation of delay, however the respondent No. 1 has dismissed the Revision application, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay. Relying upon the decisions of this court in case of R.M. Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2015(2) GLR 1242 and of the Supreme Court in case of Roop Chand v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in AIR 1963 SC 1503, he submitted that the Revision application could be filed by the private party under Section 211 of the said Act. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Muman Habib Nasir Khanji v. State of Gujarat reported in 1970 GLR 307, to submit that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing the Revision Application under Section 211 and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 has committed an error of law in dismissing the revision application, while considering the application for condonation of delay.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, submitted that Revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 211 of the said Act was not maintainable, and that the petitioner was required to file Appeal under Section 203 of the said Act, before the State Government through the Secretary which is the superior authority of the Collector. He also submitted that it is only the State Government suo moto and not the private person who could invoke the revisional power under Section 211 of the said Act. In any case, runs the submission of Mr. Mehta, the petitioner was required to invoke the Revision jurisdiction within a reasonable time and that having not been done by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has rightly rejected her application for condonation of delay.

5. In the opinion of the court, the three fold contentions raised by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mehta for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are answered by the Division Bench of this Court in