SCA/8848/2002 1/27 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8848 of 2002 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8852 of 2002 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 598 of 2003 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5069 of 2003 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2511 of 2003 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8848 of 2002 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2917 of 2004 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8848 of 2002 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11711 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8848 of 2002 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2513 of 2003 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8852 of 2002 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2918 of 2004 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8852 of 2002 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11697 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8852 of 2002 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11213 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5069 of 2003 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10313 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8848 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================= = SCA/8848/2002 2/27 JUDGMENT 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8848 of 2002 ========================================= = KALPATARU LAND (SURAT) PRIVATE LTD. Versus A.K. LOOK PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - SCA 8848 OF 2002 MR SB VAKIL, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR AS VAKIL for the Petitioner MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents ========================================= = SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8852 of 2002 ========================================= = SHAH & BROTHERS AND OTHERS Versus A.K. LOOK PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - SCA 8852 OF 2002 MR DD VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR BHARAT JANI for the Petitioners MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents ========================================= = SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.598 OF 2003 SCA/8848/2002 3/27 JUDGMENT ========================================= = STATE OF GUJARAT Versus KALPATARU LAND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LTD. AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - SCA 598 OF 2003 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Petitioner MR PC KAVINA with MRS KT MEHTA, MR AB MUNSHI and MS MO NARSHIGHANI for Respondent No.1 MR DD VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR BHARAT JANI for Respondent Nos.69 to 84 None for Respondent Nos.2 to 68 and 85 to 102 ========================================= = SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5069 OF 2003 ========================================= = FAROKHBEGUM HUSAINUDDIN MIR AND OTHERS Versus KALPATARU LAND (SURAT) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - SCA 5069 OF 2003 MR ND NANAVATI, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR YN RAVANI for the Petitioners MR SB VAKIL, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR AS VAKIL for Respondent No.1 MR DD VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR BHARAT JANI for Respondent Nos.69 to 84 None for Respondent Nos.2 to 68, and 84 to 102 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent Nos.103 to 105 ========================================= = CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2511 OF 2003 ========================================= = FAROKHBEGUM HUSAINUDDIN MIR AND OTHERS Versus KALPATARU LAND (SURAT) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ========================================= = SCA/8848/2002 4/27 JUDGMENT Appearance : - CA 2511 OF 2003 MR ND NANAVATI, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR YN RAVANI for the Applicant MR SB VAKIL, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR AS VAKIL for Opponent No.1 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent Nos.2 to 4 ========================================= = CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2917 OF 2004 ========================================= = NAWAB ZAKIYUDIN AZIMUDDIN HUSAIN KHAN AND OTHERS Versus KALPATARU LAND (SURAT) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - CA 2917 OF 2004 MR RD DAVE for the Applicants MR SB VAKIL, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR AS VAKIL for Opponent No.1 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent Nos.2 to 4 ========================================= = CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11711 OF 2005 ========================================= = MEHRUNISHA MAHAMED ALI MIR AND OTHERS Versus KALPATARU LAND (SURAT) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - CA 11711 OF 2005 MR JP RAVAL for the Applicants MR SB VAKIL, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR AS VAKIL for Opponent No.1 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent Nos.2 to 4 ========================================= = CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2513 OF 2003 SCA/8848/2002 5/27 JUDGMENT ========================================= = FAROKHBEGUM HUSAINUDDIN MIR AND OTHERS Versus SHAH & BROTHERS AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - CA 2513 OF 2003 MR ND NANAVATI, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR YN RAVANI for the Applicant MR DD VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR BHARAT JANI for Opponent Nos.1 to 4 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent Nos.5 to 7 ========================================= = CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2918 OF 2004 ========================================= = NAWAB ZAKIYUDIN AZIMUDDIN HUSAIN KHAN AND OTHERS Versus SHAH & BROTHERS AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - CA 2918 OF 2004 MR RAJESH DAVE for the Applicants MR DD VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR BHARAT JANI for Opponent Nos.1 to 4 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent Nos.5 to 7 ========================================= = CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11697 OF 2005 ========================================= = MEHRUNISHA MAHAMED ALI MIR AND OTHERS Versus SHAH & BROTHERS AND OTHERS ========================================= = SCA/8848/2002 6/27 JUDGMENT Appearance : - CA 11697 OF 2005 MR JP RAVAL for the Applicants MR DD VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR BHARAT JANI for Opponent Nos.1 to 4 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent Nos.5 to 7 ========================================= = CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11213 OF 2005 ========================================= = FAROKHBEGUM HUSAINUDDIN MIR AND OTHERS Versus KALPATARU LAND (SURAT) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - CA 11213 OF 2005 MR ND NANAVATI, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR YN RAVANI for the Applicants MR SB VAKIL, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR AS VAKIL for Respondent No.1 MR DD VYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL assisted by MR BHARAT JANI for Respondent Nos.69 to 84 None for Respondent Nos.2 to 68 and 85 to 102 MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent Nos.103 to 105 ========================================= = CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10313 OF 2007 ========================================= = SAIYED RASHIDKHATUN D/O TASADDUKHUSAIN Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ========================================= = Appearance : - CA 10313 OF 2007 MR MTM HAKIM for the Applicant MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL assisted by MS SK VISHAN, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponents ========================================= SCA/8848/2002 7/27 JUDGMENT = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 08/08/2007 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Kalpataru Land (Surat) Private Limited is before this Court being aggrieved by order dated 13.03.2002 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). By the impugned order, the Principal Secretary (Appeals) was pleased to quash the order passed by the Collector, Surat dated 05.11.1997. The Principal Secretary (Appeals) was pleased to order that as suggested in the body of the order, the irregularities committed in making mutation entry No.594 be taken up to regularization after obtaining appropriate / necessary orders from the State Government. The Principal Secretary (Appeals) was pleased to order further that, until the exercise of regularization of mutation entry No.594 is not completed, status quo be maintained of the lands, subject matter of mutation entry No.594. 2. The matter is having chequered history. The land involved is admeasuring 1673 acres of survey No.506 (paiki), which bears old survey No.400 of village 'Abhwah', Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat. Survey No.506 admeasures 2814 acres, at it was created by consolidation of two survey numbers. SCA/8848/2002 8/27 JUDGMENT 3. Mr.S.B.Vakil, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr.A.S.Vakil for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.8848 of 2002 submitted that the history which led to the present litigation starts from the year 1820. The same is not relevant / material for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the matter and hence, the same is not set out here. 4. The controversy involved in the matter is whether the appellate authority while passing the impugned order dated 13.03.2002 could have made such observations which are made and whether could have directed the Collector to take steps to get the irregularities regularized which are committed in getting the mutation entry No.594 entered into, after obtaining necessary orders from the State Government. What is not in dispute in Special Civil Application No.8848 of 2002 is that order dated 05.11.1997 (Annexure-'B' to Special Civil Application No.8848 of 2002) was passed by the Collector in RTS proceedings. The Collector, Surat, after setting out the facts in detail, passed the order recording that: 'From the material produced on record, it is clear that mutation entry No.594 was made for the land bearing survey No.506 (paiki) and by said mutation entry, names of 67 persons were entered into. Thereafter the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.8848 of 2002 - Kalpataru Land (Surat) Private Limited, who was respondent No.1 before the SCA/8848/2002 9/27 JUDGMENT Collector, had purchased various parcels of land and various mutation entries being 913 dated 02.02.1987, 914 dated 02.02.1987, 916 dated 03.02.1987, 986 dated 10.10.1988 and 987 dated 10.10.1988 were made. The said Kalpataru Land (Surat) Private Limited had purchased total 1350 acres of land.” The Collector has also recorded that, 'the land is purchased for building up, 'New Surat Township'. The Collector has recorded that: “Earlier the Mamlatdar, Choryasi had passed an order for the land bearing survey No.506 (paiki). Against that order of the Mamlatdar, one Shri Maganbhai Becharbhai Patel and others had filed appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in case No.2972 had passed order dated 08.04.1976 in favour of the land owners. The effect was given by entry No.591 dated 09.12.1976. Against that decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the Government had filed Special Civil Application No.4876 of 1992 before this Court. The said Special Civil Application was rejected by this Court by judgment and order dated 30.07.1992.” The Collector has recorded that: “Mutation entry No.861, which related to land bearing survey No.506 (paiki) and mutation entry Nos.919 to 939 were taken in revision by the Assistant / Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat, who had cancelled the same by orders dated 31.12.1989 and 30.04.1990. This order of the Assistant / Deputy Collector was again the subject matter of 23 Special SCA/8848/2002 10/27 JUDGMENT Civil Applications being Nos.6511, 6327, 6329, 6334, 6336 to 6348 of 1990. This High Court by by its judgment and order dated 14.03.1996 quashed the order of the Assistant / Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat. The said decision of the High Court was accepted by the Legal Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar vide its letter No.HCA/1996/16/1585/2 dated 28.___.96. The said decision of the Legal Department was communicated to the office of the Collector by letter of the Revenue Department bearing No.M-30-SCA-6327-90-J dated 02.11.1996 and the Collector office was directed to take further steps in the matter.” The Collector then proceeds to record that: “Kalpataru Land Development Pvt. Ltd. has purchased the land vide mutation entry Nos.913, 914, 916, 986 and 987 after distribution of the land, which was subject matter of mutation entry No.594 for putting up 'New Surat Township' and sufficient material is placed on the record to show that the land is not purchased with a view to be an agriculturist. Not only that, after purchase of this land, they have not purchased any other land; that the land in question (survey No.506) is under the head of, 'pot kharaba'; that the land is not cultivable and if at all it is to be made cultivable then huge amount is required to be spent and it is only thereafter that the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act can be made applicable; that the object of the company (petitioner of SCA No.8848/02) – Kalpataru Land Development Pvt. Ltd. is of putting up 'New Surat Township' and report in this regard is already asked for by the Government.” SCA/8848/2002 11/27 JUDGMENT The Collector has then proceeded to record that” “Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, on the conditions set out in the order, to see that the order of the High Court is not disobeyed and as per the remand order of the Secretary (Appeals), the notice issued to the petitioner, qua mutation entry Nos.594, 913, 914, 916, 986 and 987 is filed under Sub-rule 6 of Rule 108 of the Land Revenue Rules.' 5. Mr.S.B.Vakil, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr.A.S.Vakil for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.8848 of 2002 assailed the order impugned, i.e. dated 13.03.2002 on various grounds. The learned senior counsel submitted that there is delay in issuing notice dated 01.01.2002 by respondent No.1 – Principal Secretary (Appeals) for exercise of its revisional power under Section 211 read with Rule 108 (6), whereby the order of the Collector dated 05.11.1997 is sought to be taken in revision. The learned senior counsel relied upon the following various decisions: I. STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATEL RAGHAV NATHA AND OTHERS, reported in 1969 GLR 992 (SC) II. J.G.KUNDALIA AND OTHERS VS. MAMLATDAR RAJKOT SCA/8848/2002 12/27 JUDGMENT TALUKA AND OTHERS, reported in 2001 (2) GCD 896 (Guj) In support of the submission that respondent No.1 – Principal Secretary (Appeals) could not have exercised the suo motu revisional power after a delay of more than 4 years, as it is not permissible under the law. 6. The law is settled on the point and it is not in dispute that an order cannot be taken into revision or in other words revisional power cannot be exercised after a lapse of reasonable time, much less more than 4 years in the present case. 7. The learned senior counsel contended that the impugned order, i.e. dated 13.03.2002, is without jurisdiction because the revenue authorities could not have passed an order of cancelling the entries on an assumption that the transaction – subject matter of the entry is against the provisions of some other enactment. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel invited attention of the Court to the paragraph preceding to the operative part of the order, wherein the Secretary (Appeals) has recorded that, 'in recording mutation entry No.594, as discussed hereinabove, the State Government has suffered loss of stamp duty'. Besides, the Secretary (Appeals) has also recorded that, 'it is not in doubt that in making entry No.594 and certifying the same, various provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, Indian Registration Act and Transfer of SCA/8848/2002 13/27 JUDGMENT Properties Act are violated'. The learned senior counsel submitted that violation of any particular law can be looked into by an authority, who is conferred power to look into such violation. He submitted that one authority while exercising power under a particular law, cannot look into the breach of any other law and pass order for the same. He submitted that in this case, the Secretary (Appeals), while considering the order of the Collector dated 05.11.1997 in RTS proceedings, could have exercised the jurisdiction, which he is expected to exercise in RTS proceedings. He submitted that this is well settled not only under the provisions of law but also by various decisions of this Court as well as that of the Hon'ble the Apex Court. In this regard, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following decisions: I. EVERGREEN APARTMENT CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY VS. SPECIAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GUJARAT STATE, reported in 1991 (1) GLR 113. II. JANARDAN D.PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT , reported in 1997 (1) GLR 50. III. SIDDHARTHBHAI B.SHAH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS, reported in 1999 (3) GLR 2527. 8. The position of law is clear on the point and the authority could not have taken into consideration the violations of various provisions of various laws as is referred to hereinabove. To that SCA/8848/2002 14/27 JUDGMENT extent, the order is without jurisdiction. 9. The learned senior counsel submitted that in the present case, there is a repeated exercise of suo motu power. He submitted that the predecessor in title of the petitioner became owner of the land under six registered sale deeds executed in August 1969, September 1969 and December 1969 and in respect of these sale deeds, mutation entries were made in the year 1976 being mutation entry Nos.496, 497, 498, 499, 500 and 501. The learned senior counsel submitted that thereafter, Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the parties dated 18.08.1969 and names of 67 persons were mutated vide mutation entry No.594 dated 09.12.1976. The persons, who had aforesaid sale deeds in their favour plug 67 persons, who had the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding executed in their favour, sold the lands to various persons, including the petitioner – 'Kalpataru', from time to time by executing registered sale deeds. These sale deeds then led to making of mutation entries and one of such mutation entry was mutation entry No.861 made on 15.01.1985 in favour of one Balvantrai Vyas. Subsequently, five other mutation entries were made in favour of the petitioner between February 1987 to October 1988. 10. The learned senior counsel, elaborating the exercise of the revisional powers in the matter, submitted that first exercise of the revisional power was made by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant SCA/8848/2002 15/27 JUDGMENT in respect of mutation entry No.861. The said entry was cancelled by order dated 31.12.1989. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 31.12.1989, challenged the same along with 21 other persons by filing 22 writ petitions before this Court. The said 22 writ petitions were allowed by judgment and order dated 14.03.1996, which is a reported decision of this Court in 1996(2) GLR 600). Thus, mutation entry No.861 stood the test of validity up to this Court. 11. Learned senior counsel submitted that then started second round of exercise of revisional power. This time revisional power was exercised by the Collector, Surat who issued notice dated 18.12.1995. He submitted that incidentally, this notice was issued during the pendency of the aforesaid 22 writ petitions. The notice was issued to revise mutation entry No.594 dated 09.12.1976. Thus, the Collector, by its order dated 28.09.1996/01.10.1996, cancelled mutation entry No.594 dated 09.12.1976, exercising the revisional power almost after 20 years. The learned senior counsel submitted that before the petitioner could challenge that order of the Collector, the Collector, Surat issued notices under Rule 108(6) on 30.09.1996 / 08.10.1996 for revision of mutation entry Nos.913, 914, 916, 986 and 987 made in favour of the petitioner – Kalpataru. He submitted that challenge of the petitioner to the order of the Collector dated 28.09.1996 / 01.10.1996 succeeded before the Principal Secretary (Appeals) and the Principal Secretary (Appeals) vide its order dated 29.11.1996 set SCA/8848/2002 16/27 JUDGMENT aside the order of the Collector, consequence thereof, notices dated 30.09.1996 / 08.10.1996 were also stood quashed and set aside as the same were based on the order of the Collector dated 28.09.1996 / 01.10.1996. The learned senior counsel submitted that the matter was remanded to the Collector and on remand, the Collector passed order dated 05.11.1997, which is taken in revision by the Principal Secretary (Appeals), wherein impugned order dated 13.03.2002 is passed. 12. The learned senior counsel submitted that taking the order of the Collector dated 05.11.1997 in revision by the Principal Secretary (Appeals) is nothing but fourth round of exercise of revisional power, whereby the Principal Secretary (Appeals) has quashed and set aside the order of the Collector and has passed the order under challenge. 13. The learned senior counsel submitted that the revisional power exercised by the Principal Secretary (Appeals) is malafide inasmuch as, mutation entry No.861 was taken in revision in the year 1989 and that entry was sought to be cancelled by order dated 13.12.1989. This order dated 13.12.1989 was the subject matter of 22 writ petitions before this Court in the year 1990. It was during the pendency of those 22 writ petitions that the Collector, Surat issued notice dated 18.12.1995 exercising his suo motu powers to revive mutation entry No.594 dated 09.12.1976. The learned senior counsel submitted that even at the cost of SCA/8848/2002 17/27 JUDGMENT repetition, he be permitted to reiterate that this was done after lapse of almost 20 years from the date of making of an entry being mutation entry No.594, made in the year 1976 and the notice was issued in the year 1995. The learned senior counsel submitted that the authorities ought have refrained themselves from issuing notice dated 18.12.1995, more particularly when order dated 31.12.1989 was pending adjudication before this Court in 22 writ petitions. He submitted that challenge to order dated 31.12.1989 succeeded and mutation entry No.861 was confirmed by common judgment and order dated 14.03.1996 of this Court. The learned senior counsel submitted that he be permitted to reiterate that the said common judgment and order dated 14.03.1996 is accepted by the State and therefore, it is not open for the Principal Secretary (Appeals) to pass order impugned dated 13.03.2002, which amounts to overreaching the judgment and order dated 14.03.1996 of this Court in the aforesaid 22 writ petitions. 14. The settled position of law is that in RTS proceedings, power which can be exercised is limited. In RTS proceedings, it is not open to the authority to take note of and issue directions with regard to violations of provisions of different laws. To that extent, order passed by the authority is vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. The learned senior counsel submitted that interestingly, the State Government has also filed a petition being Special Civil SCA/8848/2002 18/27 JUDGMENT Application No.598 of 2003, challenging this very order passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals) dated 13.03.2002. He submitted that the petition was filed subsequent to filing of the petition by the petitioner – Special Civil Application No.8848 of 2002. The learned senior counsel submitted that in fact, the pendency of Special Civil Application No.8848 of 2002 is made the basis for getting the petition filed by the State admitted and the same is tagged along with the petition filed by the petitioner. He submitted that in the petition (SCA 598/03), the Government has prayed that: “13. (A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2002 (Annexure-A to the petition) passed by the learned Revisional Authority, to the extent stated in para 4 above.” The learned senior counsel submitted that challenge to order dated 13.03.2002 is set out in paragraph No.4 of Special Civil Application No.598 of 2003, filed by the Government, which is reads as under: “4. Being partly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order dated 13.3.2002, passed by the Revisional Authority, the petitioner, approaches this Hon'ble Court by way of the present petition challenging the legality and validity of the same, to the following extent : – Insofar as the same holds that the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the SCA/8848/2002 19/27 JUDGMENT Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 are not applicable to the lands in question, – Insofar as the same holds that there appears to be no irregularity in the sale transactions that have taken place after mutation entry No.594, – Insofar as the same directs the Collector, Surat, to obtain orders for regularising the irregularities committed while approving mutation entry No.594 in respect of the lands in question from the State Government and to take necessary action