( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 12/04/1990 in Review application No. TEN. C. K. 1 of 1990, by which the Tribunal set aside the earlier order passed by Ex-member of the Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN. A. K. 6 of 1987 dated 30/08/1990 and quashed the orders of the Collector and Deputy Collector dated 30/06/1987 and 2/05/1986 respectively, declaring that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to get 1 Acre 32 Gunthas of land in respect of which he had been shown as an encroacher and for which he had put up claim against the Government.

( 2 ) IT appears that the respondent No. 2 made an application on 19- 11-1982 claiming that the portion of 1 Acre and 32 Gunthas of land in respect of which he was shown as an encroacher, in fact, belonged to him being part of the Survey No. 982 and shown as part of the Government land bearing Survey No. 984, Though, initially, the respondent No. 2 claimed that the land was of his ownership during the proceedings, he made a statement before the Circle Inspector for allotting the land in question to him by way of a grant on payment of occupancy price claiming that it was in his possession and it was situated adjoining his land. It appears that on 13-12-1982 considering the claim of the respondent No. 2 and other rival claimants, the Deputy Collector made an order allowing the application of the respondent No. 2 and granting the land admeasuring 1 Acre and 32 Gunthas to him on payment of occupancy price equivalent to 36 times the annual assessment. One of the rival claimants Gurukrupa Co-operative housing Society preferred an appeal against that order to the Collector, which was dismissed with a direction for modifying the price which subsequently was raised pursuant to this direction by the Deputy Collector on 14-11-1983 and was fixed at Rs. 1,500. 00 per acre. The respondent No. 2 did not challenge that order. However, the rival claimant Gurukrupa society preferred a revision application to the Government. The Government set aside the order of the Deputy Collector as confirmed by the Collector and directed the Collector to take further proceedings for grant of the land in question in accordance with the existing orders of the Government. Thereupon the respondent No. 2 filed Special Civil Application No. 3629 of 1984 against that order. That petition came to be withdrawn on 10th august, 1984, in view of the statement on behalf of the Government that the Collector shall examine the question of allotment in the light of the claim of the present respondent No. 2, as well as the claim of others and that his claim will not be deemed to have rejected for all time to come by the Special Secretarys order. It appears that thereafter the respondent No. 2 re-agitated the issue by making a fresh application dated 24-8-1984 to the Deputy Collector. The application of the respondent no. 2 for grant of land came to be dismissed on 2/05/1986. The appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 before the Collector also came to be dismissed on 30/06/1986. That order was challenged by the respondent No. 2 in a revision application, which was heard by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) who held that the Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application and that only appeal could lie before the Tribunal against such an order of the Collector. The matter was thereafter heard by the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its detailed order dated 30/08/1990 found that the claim of the respondent No. 2 that the land was earlier owned by him was flimsy and that the respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the land in question and in fact the question of ownership of the land was irrelevant in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2 had himself sought for the allotment of the land by the Government to him on payment of occupancy price. In this view of the matter, holding that the claim of the respondent no. 2 of the ownership of the lan