The central legal point established is that the authority under one enactment does not have jurisdiction to decide issues under another enactment.

B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10/12.12.1995 passed by the respondent No. 2, and the order dated 21/25.02.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1.

2. The short facts are that the petitioners had purchased the agricultural land bearing Block No. 273 in the sim of village Kareli from the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by registered sale deed dated 23.11.1987. Pursuant to the said sale transaction, an entry was mutated in the revenue record being entry No. 1978 in favour of the petitioners. The said entry was also certified by the Mamlatdar vide order dated 30.01.1988. It appears that thereafter the Mamlatdar had initiated the proceedings under Section84(C) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act') by issuing the notice to the petitioners. The said notice came to be challenged by the petitioners by filing Special Civil Application No. 10967 of 1994 before the High Court. However, the said petition was dismissed on the ground of being pre-mature. As per the case of the petitioners, in the meantime the Section 2(6) of the Tenancy Act came to be deleted, and therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 84(C) for the breach of Section 2(6) read with 63 stood terminated in view of the circular dated 20.11.2000, issued by the State Government. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar, Palsana also vide order dated 27.01.2003 withdrew the proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act initiated against the petitioners. However, pending the proceedings under Section 84(C), the Collector Surat suo moto initiated the proceedings under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, and deleted the entry No. 1978 dated 30.01.1988 in respect of the land in question by holding that there was breach of Section 2(6) and 63 of the Tenancy Act, and Rule 36(1)(f) of the said Rules, vide the impugned order dated 10/12.12.1995 (Annexure - A). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred the revision before the respondent No. 1, who vide the impugned order dated 21/25.02.2013 dismissed the same (Annexure B).

3. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr. Purohit submitted that respondent No. 2 while exercising the jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Code, could not have held that the petitioners were non-agriculturists, and there was breach of Section 2(6) read with 63 of the Tenancy Act. According to him, even otherwise, in view of the circular dated 20.11.2000, issued by the State Government, and the order dated 27.01.2003, passed by the Mamlatdar, the proceedings under Section 84(C) had stood terminated, and therefore the respondent No. 1 should not have confirmed the order passed by the respondent No. 2. He further submitted that the petitioners could not remain present before the respondent No. 1 on the date fixed for hearing as the respondent No. 1 had preponed the date of hearing without the knowledge of the petitioners. The learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Meruben D/o. Sorabji Pestanji Bhatporiya and W/o. Late Peshi Morena and Another versus Additional Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Disputes) and Ors. reported in 2002 (1) GLR 640, and in the case of Ratilal Maganlal Intwala and Others versus Special Secretary (Appeals) and Ors. reported in, 2013 (3) GLR 2520 in support of his submissions that since the proceedings under the Tenancy Act had stood terminated, the orders impugned passed by the respondents are illegal.

4. However, the learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the respondents submitted that the petitioners had failed to appear before both the authorities without any justification. She further submitted that it was the duty of the petitioners to produce all the relevant material before the concerned authority which the petitioners had failed to do so.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned advo