( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the direction given by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Government of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, to the competent authority to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Sec. 9 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") while exercising the powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") at the time of deciding the revision application filed by the respondents No. 2 to 10.

( 2 ) THE facts, as are emerged from the petition, are that one Somabhai Zenabhai, father of respondents No. 2 and 7 and the husband of respondent No. 6, and respondents No. 2 to 4 were the co-owners of the land bearing Survey No. 561+562 situate in the outskirts of the Village Jahaj. The said respondents have sold the land admeasuring 425 sq. mtrs. out of the said land to the petitioner and the petitioner was put in the actual possession of the said land. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have thereafter executed the registered sale deed on 5. 9. 85 in favour of the petitioner.

( 3 ) IT is further submitted that the respondents No. 2 to 5 have thereafter tried to disturb the petitioners possession of the same land and hence Regular Civil Suit No. 317 of 1985 was filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the said suit and compromise decree was passed on 11. 12. 85.

( 4 ) IT is further submitted that on the basis of the sale deed dated 5. 9. 85, mutation entry No. 1655 dated 8. 1. 86 was made in the mutation register, Village Form No. 6. The respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 had raised their objections against the said entry. The Mamlatdar thereafter had heard the parties and passed the order on 5. 1. 87 setting aside the said mutation entry.

( 5 ) IT is further submitted that being aggrieved by the said order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner preferred R. T. S. Appeal No. 27/87 before the Prant Officer and the said appeal was dismissed by him, vide his order dated 30. 11. 1987. Being further aggrieved by the said order of the Prant Officer, the petitioner preferred R. T. S. Revision Application No. 57/88 before the Collector at Kheda, who had also dismissed the Revision Application by his order dated 12. 9. 1988. Being further aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), who has, vide his order dated 25. 5. 1990 partly allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Collector for deciding the same afresh.

( 6 ) IT is further submitted that the Collector thereafter heard the parties and allowed the Revision Application filed by the petitioner by his order dated 22. 11. 1991 and set aside the order passed by the Prant Officer in R. T. S. Appeal No. 27/87 dated 30. 11. 1987 and also the order of Mamlatdar dated 5. 1. 1987 and passed the order to certify the Entry No. 1655.

( 7 ) IT is further submitted that being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, the respondents No. 2 to 10 preferred the Revision Application No. 7/92 before the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) and he vide his order dated 5. 9. 1992 partly allowed the revision and directed the competent authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Sec. 9 of the said Act. It is this order, giving direction under Sec. 9 to the competent authority, is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

( 8 ) I have heard ld. advocate, Ms. Brahmbhatt appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mankad appearing for the respondent No. 1. Though Mr. D. F. Amin, ld. advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 10 he is not present when the petition was called out twice. The ld. advocate has challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds, name