JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Rule. Learned AGP Ms. Divyangna Jhala waives service of notice of rule for respondent authorities.

2. In this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the respondent no. 1, by which, Revision Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. S.M. Kikani for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Divyangna Jhala for respondent authorities. Though served, none appears for the private respondents.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the dispute in the present matter is with regard to the land bearing Survey No. 266/1 admeasuring A201G, situated at moje Village: Jafrabad, Taluka: Jafrabad, District: Amreli, which was owned and occupied by one Lakhabhai Surabhai Makwana, who is father of the respondent no. 3 herein. He submitted that after the death of the father of the respondent no. 3, Revenue Entry No. 504 came to be mutated and thereby the name of the respondent no. 3 came to be mutated in the revenue record. It is further submitted that in the year 1996, the respondent no. 3 sold the land in question to the respondent nos.4 and 5 by registered sale-deed, which was executed on 11.04.1996 and pursuant to the said sale-deed, Entry No. 640 came to be mutated on 20.08.1996, which was subsequently certified.

5. At this stage, it is contended that when Mutation Entry Nos. 504 and 640 were mutated in the revenue record, the said land was not shown as new tenure land.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner, thereafter, contended that the petitioner purchased the land in question after verification of the revenue record vide Entry No. 950, which was certified.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that after a period of more than 18 years of the mutation of the revenue entry in favour of the predecessor in title of the petitioner and after a period of 6 years from the entry, which was mutated in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record, the respondent-Mamlatdar sent proposal to the Assistant Collector that Entry No. 640, which was mutated in the revenue record in the name of the predecessor in title of the petitioner was wrongly mutated as the land in question is new tenure land. It is, therefore, submitted that the show cause notice was issued after a period of 18 years from the mutation of Entry No. 640 and thereafter, the respondent authorities have passed impugned orders. It is contended that the suo motu exercise of powers after a period of 18 years is grossly delayed and, therefore only on this ground, the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.

8. Learned advocate, Mr. Kikani has placed reliance upon following judgments:

(1) Vinesh Devchand and Co. vs. Joint Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and Others, 2018 (3) GLR 1388

(2) Dudhiben Muljibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2016 (2) GLR 1786

(3) Bharatbhai Naranbhai Vegda vs. State of Gujarat, 2016 (2) GLR 1021

(4) Ratilal Maganlal Intwala vs. Special Secretary (Appeal), 2013 (3) GLR 2520

(5) Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah vs. State of Gujarat, 2011 (3) GLR 2587

(6) Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (3) GLR 1852

(7) Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, 1997 (6) SCC 71

(8) Bhaniben Makanbhai Tandel vs. State of Gujarat, 1992 (1) GLH 93

9. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, it is urged that this petition may be allowed.

10. On the other hand, learned AGP has referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent authorities and, thereafter, contended that as the land in question is new tenure land, the predecessor in title of the petitioner could not have sold the land and, therefore, when the entry in question was wrongly mutated in the revenue record, the proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the said entries and, therefore, no error is committed by the respondent authority while cancelling the entries in question. He submitted that if th