( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocates. The respondent no. 2 has not entered her appearance.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the heirs of one Pratapsinh Vasava, a tribal of Bharuch District, and challenge the judgment and order dated 7th December, 1991, passed by the State Government in Revision Application No. 19/91.

( 3 ) IT appears that the above referred Pratapsinh Vasava was a tenant of the land bearing Survey No. 20 (now Block No. 34) admeasuring 5-Acre-20 Gunthas, situated at village-Dhanshera, Taluka-Sagbara since the year 1958. One Panchiya Vasava, also a Tribal, was the owner. Pratapsinh Vasava purchased the said land for consideration from Panchiya Vasava on 1st May, 1961, and executed a sale-deed on 1st March, 1967. A suo-motu action under section 73-A read with section 79-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was initiated by the Deputy Collector (Tenancy) in Sagbara Case No 265/74 by issuing a notice upon late Pratapsinh Vasava to show cause why the sale made in his favour should not be declared as void as no prior sanction of the Competent Authority had been obtained. The Deputy Collector held that Pratapsinh Vasava was in actual possession of the land since 20th April, 1958, and had purchased the land on 1st May, 1961. The provisions made in section 73-A of the Code had been made applicable to village Sagbara on 1st August, 1963. The said provision, therefore, was not applicable and no action under section 79-A of the Code was warranted. Accordingly, the proceedings were disposed of on 22nd September, 1975. The proceedings under section 73-A and section 79-A of the Code were initiated afresh in Sagbara Case No. 114/79 by a show cause notice issued on 26th May, 1978. The said case was also closed on 31st July,. 1978, since the transaction in question was found to be legal and valid. The heirs of the vendor - Panchia Vasava challenged the above referred order dated 22nd September, 1975 in Revision before the State Government on 1st November, 1984. The Government, vide its order dated 12th May, 1986, quashed the order dated 22nd September, 1975, and remanded the matter for trial afresh. The above referred order dated 12th May, 1986, was challenged by the petitioner (successor-in-title of Pratapsinh Vasava) before this court in Special Civil Application No. 4134/86. Since the order impugned was that of remand, this court did not think it fit to interfere with the same. However, the ad-interim order granted earlier was extended upto 14th August, 1987 and was further extended upto 31st October, 1987. Inspite of the orders made on Special Civil Application No. 4134/86, the petitioners were dispossessed of the land by order dated 16th December, 1988. After the remand, the matter was tried as Case No. 1/88. Once again the Deputy Collector under his order dated 25th November, 1989, held that the transaction in question was between the Tribals which had taken effect after 3rd March, 1961, and prior to 31st March, 1981, the said transfer was, therefore, held to have been regularised under section 73-AA of the Code. The said order was challenged by one Monghuben-daughter of the vendor-Panchiya Vasava-the present respondent no. 2 before the Collector in Appeal No. 2/90 which was dismissed on 20th April, 1991. Feeling aggrieved, the said Monghuben preferred Revision before the State Government on 7th December, 1991. The Government, under its order dated 7th December, 1991, held that the transfer in question was valid and the question of its being regularised under section 73-AA of the Code did not arise. The orders of the Deputy Collector dated 25th September, 1989 and of the Collector dated 20th April, 1991, were, therefore, quashed and set aside. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

( 4 ) SECTION 73 of the Code provides that - " an occupancy shall, subject to the provisions contained in section 56 and to any conditions lawfully annexed to the te