JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition preferred by present appellant against the order dated 05.10.1998 passed by Deputy Secretary (Appeals).

2. Mr. Sanjanvala, learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Mr. Dilip Kanojiya, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned AGP has appeared for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. A.C. Nanavati, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/8. Having regard to the rival contentions, Rule. Mr. Trivedi, learned AGP has waived service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final decision.

3. The facts involved in and relevant for the purpose of this appeal can be briefly summarised thus:

3.1 The appellant-original petitioner purchased agricultural land of Block No. 357 bearing Survey No. 280/3 admeasuring about 1 acre and 14 gunthas (hereafter referred to as the "land in question") from the respondent No. 1 on 23rd June, 1977. The appellant has claimed that inadvertently certain mistake had crept-in, in the sale deed hence a "Durasti deed" was executed between the parties on 30th June, 1981.

3.2 On the premise that at the time of the said transaction, the land in question was "fragment", the Mamlatdar, Mehsana made a report about the said transaction stating that the said transaction was in violation of the statutory restrictions imposed by virtue of the provision under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") pursuant to which the action for breach of Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Act was initiated vide communication dated 16.12.1986.

3.3 It is appropriate and necessary to note, at this stage, that the consolidation scheme was approved on 09.03.1972 as per which the land in question was declared "fragment" and the entry describing the land in question as "fragment" was duly registered in the revenue record on 25.04.1973 by virtue of Entry No. 990/181.

3.4 Upon conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings, the Prant Officer, by his order dated 30.07.1992, held the transaction illegal and while directing summary eviction of the appellant, imposed fine of Rs.250/- on respondent No. 1. Against the said order dated 30.07.1992, present appellant had preferred Revision Application before the Revenue Secretary, who, by his order dated 05.10.1998 rejected the Revision Application and confirmed the order dated 30.07.1992. Against the said orders, the appellant preferred the writ petition which also came to be rejected by the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2008. Hence present appeal.

4. Mr. Sanjanvala, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant is in possession of the land in question and has yet not been evicted. The learned counsel has assailed the order submitting that any notice under Section 6(2) of the Act was not issued or published and that the revenue record also did not show the land in question as "fragment". The learned Senior Counsel, as his paramount contention, submitted that the impugned action stands vitiated since it was initiated after long delay of almost, nine years (from the date of sale) or at least five years (from the date of Durasti deed). He also submitted that the statuary action has to be taken within the prescribed time and where the statute does not prescribe any time limit then within reasonable time and even if the transaction is void, the action must be taken within prescribed limitation or reasonable time. He further submitted that since the disputed transaction has been entered into between the two terminus viz. 19.02.1969 and 23.03.1979, the transaction is saved in view of the provision under Section 31(2)(b). The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment