In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 27.6.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in SCA No. 333 of 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and remanded the proceedings to the Collector for passing fresh order in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made by learned Single Judge in his order dated 27.6.2011.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal can be summarised as under:-

2.1 The dispute pertains to land admeasuring about 928 acres and 21 gunthas of the ownership of appellant - original respondent No.1 and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who represent the ancestry of erstwhile rulers of Jamnagar. It appears that with respect to the land in question bearing survey No. 1/A, the Mamlatdar and ALT instituted proceedings under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act (for short "the Ceiling Act'). Record reveals that after series of remands, the Mamlatdar and ALT by order dated 14.3.1995, declared that the lands are not agricultural lands within the meaning of term so defined under Section 2 Clause (17) of the Ceiling Act. The Mamlatdar and ALT therefore, ordered to drop the proceedings.

2.2 The record reveals that Mamlatdar's order was taken in suo-motu revision by the Collector. The Collector issued notice to the appellant herein and original respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and called upon them to reply as to why the order of the Mamlatdar should not be taken in suo-motu review for reasons mentioned in the notice dated 8.1.1996.

2.3 The record further reveals that the appellant herein was the only person who responded to the notice issued by the Collector and appeared through the legal representative. The Collector however, vide order dated 9.2.1996, set aside the order of Mamlatdar holding that the land was agricultural land and further he was of the opinion that the appellant herein and original respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were in unauthorised possession thereof. He therefore, ordered summary eviction of appellant herein and original respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the land in question under Section 61 of Saurashtra Land Reforms Act.

2.4 The appellant alone preferred Revision Application before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the said revision application passed an order dated 6.11.2000 and set aside the order of Collector, primarily on the ground that Collector ordered eviction of land without putting the appellant herein and original respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to notice of such proposed action.

2.5 The State of Gujarat, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 6.11.2000, passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, challenged the same by preferring SCA No. 333 of 2002.

2.6 Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and perusal of the necessary records, thought fit to set aside the order of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and remand the proceedings to the Collector for passing fresh order in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made by the learned Single Judge.

2.7 The appellant - original respondent No.1 being aggrieved by such order passed by learned Single Judge is before us by way of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. We have heard learned Senior Council Mr. Percy Kavina appearing with Mr. Vivek N Mapara, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Krina Calla, learned AGP for the respondent State.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He would further contend that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the land in question being an agricultural land has attained finality and hence the same cannot be disputed. He would also contend that the learned Single Judge ought to have held that the land in dispute was not an agricultural land and hence, the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act were not a