K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.K. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP.

2. In present petition the petitioners have placed under challenge order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal and the order dated 30.4.1998 and the communication dated 29.7.1968 as well as order dated 27.10.1997. While challenging the said orders the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:-

"8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 21.8.2007 at Annexure-A passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, order of the Deputy Collector at Annexure-B dated 30.4.1998 (4.5.1968) and communication dated 29.7.1968 at Annexure-D and the order dated 27.10.1997 at Annexure-C to the petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioners who are joint khatedar in Block Survey No. 235, situated at village Bhensavda, do have legal right of 1/3rd share each (both petitioners have 2/3rd ) of the land admeasuring 11 acres and 38 gunthas, therefore, the orders of the authorities are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the action on the part of the respondent authorities of not issuing the statutory notices, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the respondent authorities is in breach of Section 20 and 22 of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 and the same being without authority of law, being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the action on the part of the respondent authorities to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as right to livelihood includes right to life and the action on the part of the respondent authorities taking away the livelihood without following the procedure established under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional."

3. So far as learned Tribunal's order is concerned, learned Tribunal, vide order dated 21.8.2007, dismissed the Revision Application No. 14 of 1999 filed by present petitioners observing, inter alia, that the petitioners challenged order dated 9.7.1968 after almost 20 years (i.e. in 1999) and that therefore, the proceedings are obviously time barred. With such observations and further findings the learned tribunal rejected the revision application filed by present petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by said order and other previous orders the petitioners have taken out present petition.

4. So as to appreciate the challenge against the impugned orders raised by the petitioners it is appropriate and necessary to take into account factual background.

4.1 From the submissions by advocate for the petitioners and learned AGP and from the details mentioned in the petition as well as from the factual background discussed in the impugned orders it has emerged that the petitioners' father was owner of certain agriculture land. Some part of the land came to be declared surplus under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). An order to the said effect was passed on 9.7.1968. Thereafter vide communication dated 29.7.1968 father of the petitioners was informed that he should intimate the choice/selection of the land which he would like to retain.

4.2 It appears that even after said communication dated 29.7.1968 the father of the petitioners did not inform the competent authority about his choice/selection of land which he would like to retain.

4.3 Thereafter for almost 20 years any steps were not taken by the petitioners or their father against the order dated 9.7.1968 and/or communication dated 29.7.1968.

4.4 About 20 years thereafter the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 3792 of 1997. The said petition came to be unconditionally withd