K. M. THAKER, J.

Present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 17-11-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by present appellant against the order dated 27-3-2009 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Application No. 42 of 2005. By the said order dated 27-3-2009, the Revisional

Authority confirmed the order dated 6-8-2001 passed by the Collector, Surendranagar in Appeal No. 68 of 1999, by which the Collector had confirmed the order dated 2-2-2000 passed by the Deputy Collector. By the impugned orders the sale and consequent transfer of land in question in favour of the appellant is held to be in breach of Sec. 54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1949 ("Ordinance" for short) and the authority has directed in exercise of power under Sec.75 of the Ordinance, to evict the appellant from the land in question. The petition against the said orders is also dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The facts involved in and relevant for the purpose of present appeal are as follows :

2.1. One Shrimati Monghiben Motibhai Koli owned a parcel of land bearing Survey No. 76, admeasuring 7 Acres and 40 Gunthas (hereinafter referred to as the "said land") situate in vi11age Ishwariya. The said land was sold and transferred by her in favour of the appel1ant-petitioner by sale-deed dated 29-6-1979. In pursuance of the said transaction the name of the appellant was entered in the revenue record vide Entry No. 215 which was mutated on 30-5-1980 and certified on 5-9-1980.

2.2. It appears from the record that subsequently the Deputy Col1ector, pursuant to the proposal and report made by the Mamlatdar, somewhere in 1997, Limbdi issued Notice under Secs. 54 read with Sec. 75 of the Ordinance on the ground that the said transaction dated 29-6-1979 violated the provision of the Ordinance.

2.3. In response to the Notice the petitioner attended the hearing before the competent authority and contended that he was agricultural labourer and an artisan and belonged to Baxi-panch category. Having considered the said explanation, the Deputy Col1ector, Limbdi passed order dated 2-2-2000 declaring that the purchaser was not agriculturist, hence, the said transaction was in breach of Sec. 54 of the Ordinance and that despite being non-agriculturist the petitioner had, by purchasing agricultural land, successful1y manoeuvered to secure status of agriculturist and directed that the petitioner be removed from the said land and the Entry No. 215 be deleted.

2.4. Upon being aggrieved by the said order dated 2-2-2000, the petitioner preferred Appeal being Appeal No. 68 of 1999 before the Collector, Surendranagar which came to be rejected by the Collector, Surendranagar vide order dated 6-8-2001. Upon being aggrieved by the said order dated 6-8-2001 present appel1ant filed Revision Application No. 42 of 2005 before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department who rejected the said Revision Application vide his order dated 27-3-2009 and confirmed the Collector's order. Against the said orders, the appellant herein preferred petition being Sp1.C.A. No. 11825 of 2009 which also came to be rejected by impugned order dated 17-11-2009. Upon feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred present appeal relying on the judgment in the case of Valjibhai Jagjivanbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (3) GLR 1852.

3. Mr. Nehal R. Joshi learned Advocate has appeared for the appellant- petitioner. Ms. Krina Calla, learned A.G.P. has appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. For respondent NO.4 no one has entered appearance, though served. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. Rule. At the request of the appellant and with consent of A.G.P., the appeal is heard for final decision.

4. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant has before us also, as he did even before the learned Single Judge, assailed the impugned ord