JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.2021 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Fragmentation Case No. CON/VDD/74/2019 and order dated 5.10.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector, Vadodara (Rural) in Fragmentation Case No.15 of 2019.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate Mr. U.M.Shastri and learned AGP, Mr. Nikunj Kanara waive rule on behalf of respective respondents.

3. Brief facts of the petition are that the land bearing Survey/Block No.288/3 admeasuring 0-18-21 H-Ra-Sq.Mtrs. of Village Nandesri, Taluka & District Vadodara was originally belonged to the forefathers of respondent No.3.1 i.e. Jagdishbhai Salambhai and others, who inherited the land and who were in possession of the land from their forefathers.

3.1 In the year 2009 by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.11.2009 said Jagdishbhai Salambhai and others transferred the aforesaid land in favour of one Harendrasinh Chadrasinh Kher and Jagdishbhai Punjabhai Chauhan (respondent Nos.4 and 5). Pursuant to the aforesaid sale deed, a revenue entry No.2346 was also mutated in the revenue record on 3.1.2012.

3.2 The petitioner purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 1.11.2013 from respondent Nos.4 and 5 and accordingly mutation entry No.2456 was mutated on 2.11.2013.

3.3 After about 6 years after the land was purchased and revenue entry was mutated in favour of the petitioner, in the year 2019 the Assistant Collector, Vadodara by registering Fragmentation Case No.15 of 2019 took the aforesaid two sale transactions of the year 2013 and 2019 into suo motu revision as according to the Assistant Collector, Vadodara, both the aforesaid transactions were in breach of Sections 7(1) and 8 of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, ‘Fragmentation Act’) and the lands were transferred to the persons other than owners of contiguous land.

3.4 Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 31.8.2019 the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Vadodara (Rural) took place and ultimately vide order dated 18.1.2019 passed in the Fragmentation Case No.15 of 2019, the Assistant Collector, Vadodara declared the sale transaction illegal and void under Section 9(1) of the Act and further passed an order of summary eviction of the petitioner and also imposed penalty as per Sections 9(2) and 9(3) of the Fragmentation Act.

3.5 The petitioner carried the matter further by preferring revision application as per Section 35 of the Act, which was registered as Revision Application No. CON/VDD/74/2019. However, ultimately after hearing the parties even the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department also vide order dated 18.1.2021 rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 5.10.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector, Vadodara (Rural).

3.6 Hence, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders dated 5.10.2019 and 18.1.2021 passed by the Assistant Collector, Vadodara (Rural) and Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, present petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. Mr. Trilok Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the very initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Fragmentation Act was without jurisdiction, as for a sale transaction, which has taken place in the year 2013 after a delay of 6 years, in the year 2019 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that reasonable period could not be more than 3 years, and therefore, since the proceedings were initiated after an unreasonable delay, the entire proceedings can be termed as without jurisdiction and hence the entire proceedings are vitiated and impugned are required to be quashed and set aside.

4.1 Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the fa