K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Bhatt learned advocate for petitioner and Mr. J.M. Patel, learned advocate for respondent and Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 to 4.

2. In Special Civil Application No. 2083 of 2007, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:

"12(a) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and direction and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 21/27/11/2006 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Dispute) order of remand and thereby restore order passed by the Collector dated 10.6.2005 of granting revised N.A. Permission for survey No. 620 of village Tarapur Dist: Anand of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

3. Whereas in Special Civil Application No. 2089 of 2007, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:

"13(a) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and direction and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 21/27/11/2006 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Dispute) order of remand and thereby restore order passed by the Collector dated 10.6.2005 of granting revised N.A. Permission for survey No. 620 of village Tarapur Dist: Anand of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

4. Even according to the submission by learned advocate for petitioner, the petitioner, in both the petitions, is the same person and the petitioner has challenged very same order i.e. order dated 21-27/11/2006 passed by Secretary (Appeals) in both the petitions.

5. Learned advocate for petitioner further clarified that though very same order is under challenge, the petitioner has filed two petitions because there are separate complainants in both cases.

6. In view of the fact that subject matter of both petitions is similar and identical and the petitioner in both the petitions is also same person and the complainants in both the petitions are represented by same learned advocate Mr. J.M. Patel and since both sides have raised similar contentions for both cases, the petitions are heard and decided together with consent of learned advocates for petitioner and respondents.

7. By way of the order which is impugned in both the petitions, the Secretary (Appeals) has remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration and fresh decision by the Collector.

8. So far as factual backdrop involved in this two cases is concerned, the petitioner has narrated the facts in Para-2 to 7 of the petition, which read thus:

"2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner purchased land bearing revenue survey No. 620 situated at village Tarapur by registered sale deed in the year 1990. A copy of the said sale deed is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A to this petition. It is submitted that the petitioner sold portion of the land which is situated at northern side of highway to Shri Rambhai Chelabhai Bharwad by registered sale deed on 28.10.1996. It is submitted that in the sale deed itself, it is made clear that petitioner who sold the land is not responsible in less or higher measurement of the land in question and land situated on northern side of High Way has been sold while land on south side of high way has been kept by petitioner. A copy of the said sale deed is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure B to this petition.

3. It is submitted that because of the widening of the road which is now highway the measurement was required to be made of the land which of the ownership and in possession of the petitioner situated on southern side of the highway and, therefore, the application was made for measurement which was granted ad measurement was made of the land which is belongs to the petitioner. Not only measurement was made but map was also prepared which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure C to this petition.

4. It is submitted that because of the laying of road the survey No. 620 has been divided into two parts namely one part falls on northern side of highway which has been sold by the petitioner in the year 1996 and