( 1 ) THE short question which has been raised in this Letters patent Appeal, challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned single Judge on 1. 9. 98 in Special Civil Application No. 1123 of 1998, whereby the said petition filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed, is whether the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned single Judge is in any way unjust, perverse or questionable or not?

( 2 ) IN order to examine the aforesaid question, a few skeleton projection of facts may be narrated, at first. The appellant is State of Gujarat on behalf of whom a show cause notice dated 29/11/1997 under rule 108 (6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules came to be issued, inter alia, contending that there was breach and infraction of the provisions of sections 43 and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. One Mohanbhai had executed a will in favour of the respondent in this appeal on 15. 2. 86 and the executant of the Will Mohanbhai expired on 1. 10. 87 and the respondent herein-original petitioner, therefore, claimed that his name should be mutated in the revenue record. Therefore, on the basis of the said Will, after holding inquiry, the nam