K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vimal M. Patel, learned advocate with Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for petitioner and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned AGP.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter-alia, that:

"6(B) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari, and/or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order Annexure-A passed by respondent No. 2, and thereby affirm orders Annexure-C and F certifying the revenue entry No. 629 dated 28.3.1995 (Annexure-D);

(C) Stay the execution and operation of the impugned order Annexure-A pending admission, hearing and disposal of the petition;

(D) Grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (C) above;

(D-1) Initiate proceedings against the respondent No. 1 under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for deposing something on oath before a Court of Law which he had knowledge of being not true and is likely to cause prejudice and loss in cash as well as kind to the petitioners;

(D-2) Award costs as well as exemplary costs to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged that the Respondent No. 1 sold the said land to the petitioners, by agreement to sell dated 11.5.1960, handed over the possession of the land in question to the petitioners on the

3.1 Subsequently, in November, 1993, Deputy Collector, Land Reform No. 8 & Tribal Sub-plan, Rajpipla, initiated proceedings under Section 73A read with Section 73AA of the Act.

3.2 In the said proceedings, the Deputy Collector passed order dated 8.11.1993 holding inter-alia that the transaction was entered into and executed before 4.4.1961 and the purchaser being resident within radius of 8 km, provisions under Section 73AA of the Land Revenue Code will not be attracted and would not be applicable. In view of the said order, the proceedings came to be closed and the notice was withdrawn.

3.3 Thereafter, the transaction was entered into the revenue record and entry No. 629 was mutated in name of petitioners on 25.1.1995 in village Form No. 6.

3.4 It appears that after the said order dated 8.11.1993 was passed, the respondent No. 1, after some delay, initiated Appeal proceedings in June, 1997 against the said entry No. 629 dated 25.1.1995 and against the petitioners. The Appeal was registered as RTS Appeal No. 4/98/7-98. The Deputy Collector, heard the parties and allowed the appeal vide order dated 28.9.1998 and directed that entry No. 629 should be canceled.

3.5 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Appeal before the Collector, which was registered as Appeal No. 7/98-99. The Collector heard the parties and vide his order dated 29.9.1998, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector.

3.6 It appears that while above mentioned proceedings progressed before Deputy Collector and Collector, the respondent No. 1 appears to have instituted certain proceedings against the order dated 8.11.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector.

3.7 The proceedings instituted by respondent No. 1 against the order dated 8.11.1993 was registered as Appeal No. 37 of 1997 by Secretary (Appeals).

3.8 The petitioners herein were impleaded as party opponent in the said proceedings.

3.9 However, the petitioners would plead that any notice about the proceedings was not served to the petitioners.

3.10 It appears that respondent No. 1 had filed Revision Application No. 37/97 on or around 1.5.1997 against the order dated 8.11.1993.

3.11 Thus, the said proceedings were instituted after delay of almost 4 years.

3.12 The Secretary (Appeals) considered the said Appeal and passed order on 30.08.2003.

3.13 It is pertinent to note that in the meanwhile, the proceedings before the Collector were conducted and nobody brought it to the notice of the Secretary (Appeals) that the proceedings before Collector were conducted and order was passed by the Collector.

3.14 The Secretary (Appeals,) probably, remained oblivious of the said proceedi