Point in Issue :
Whether petition in the facts of the case maintainable?

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26/12/2008 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application No. SRD/HKP/Pancham/13/2005 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the Collector, Panchmahals dated 25/06/2005 in RTS Revision No. 3/2004 by which the Collector, Panchmahals dismissed the application confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Lunawada Prant in RTS Remand Case No. 6/2003 by declaraing the transaction in favour of the petitioners as illegal and in breach of Section73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

2. This petition has a chequered history. The petitioners claim to be the owners and occupiers of certain portion of land bearing Survey No. 101 paiki, 200 paiki and 358 paiki situated at village Sarasva (west), Taluka Santarampur, District Panchmahals. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the disputed land in question was mortgaged by the original land owner, Shri Dhanji Velji with possession to one Shri Jethalal Sankalchand and accordingly Mutation Entry No. 205 dated 05/09/1960 was recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, Mutation Entry No. 208 was recorded, in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 04/04/1961, showing the land, except the mortgaged land as new tenure. It appears that at the relevant time, the mortgaged land was not considered as new tenure land. Again, thereafter, Mutation Entry No. 232 dated 02/07/1964 was recorded in respect of the oral sale transaction for the mortgaged land in favour of Shri Jethalal Sankalchand. Thereafter, half of the land purchased by Shri Jethalal Sankalchand was sold to one Shri Hema Bhura (father of the respective petitioners) and Mutation Entry No. 233 was recorded on 22/08/1964. Thereafter, the remaining land owned by the original owner came to be purchased, which was owned by Shri Dhanji Velji, by Shri Hema Bhura (father of the respective petitioners) and Mutation Entry No. 241 was recorded on 02/08/1966 in respect of the sale transaction dated 22/04/1966. Thereafter, proceedings was initated by the Assistant Collector, Dahod in the proceedings arising for breach of condition under Sectin 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in respect of the sale transactions with respect the disputed land in the year 1978 and it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the said proceedings was dropped in view of Mutuation Entry No. 208 as the disputed land in question was not treated as new tenure. Another Mutation Entry No. 610 was recorded on 26/11/1978, which was certified on 02/06/1979, taking note of the order of the Assistant collector, Dahod dated 17/11/1978. It appears that the Mutation Entries were subject matter before the Collector, Dahod at the instance of one Shri Meghabhai Dhanjibhai and it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the Collector, Dahod refused to take the Mutation Entries in respect of the sale transactions in review on account of inordinate delay in such exercise of powers. Against the order of the Collector, Dahod refusing to take Mutation Entries in respect of the sale transactions in review, Revision Application was preferred before the Secretary (Appeals) and the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) vide judgement and order dated 11/07/2000 remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector (LND-8), Dahod to take a fresh decision with regard to the breach of Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector, Lunavada Prant vide judgement and order dated 29/01/2004 set aside all the transanctions made in respect of the aforesaid lands declaring the same to be illegal vide order passed in RTS Remand Case No. 6/2003 by specifically holding that the transactions in favour of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question is hit by Section 73-A of