K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Patel, learned AGP for the respondents.

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

(10)(b) Be pleased to quash and set-aside the three Impugned orders passed by the Respondents (Impugned order dt. 31/12/2001 passed by the respo. No. 1 Revenue Tribunal, in revision No. 31/2001, the Impugned order dt. 31/11/2000, passed by the Deputy Collector, Tharad sub-division, Tharad, the respondent No. 2, in ceiling appeal No. 2/2000 Vashi 9646, and the impugned order dt. 3/1/2000 passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Wav, in ceiling case No. 1/99 pending on their respective file) and only Survey No. 1628 admeasuring 5 acres and 10 gunthas may kindly be declared as surplus land and/or out of survey Nos. 1627 and 1628 whose total measurement is 11 acres and 34 gunthas, only 5 acres and 6 gunthas may kindly be declared as surplus land."

3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP that:

3.1 The petitioner owned agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 1005, 1627 and 1628. Total holding of the petitioner was 88 acres and 30 gunthas.

3.2 The Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings under Sections 9 and 26 of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and declared that the petitioner would be entitled to hold/retain 75 acres and 4 gunthas and the Mamlatdar & ALT declared that the petitioner held excess land to the extent of 5 acres and 6 gunthas.

3.3 Thereafter, the petitioner was granted opportunity to exercise choice as to which parcel of land the petitioner would prefer to retain.

3.4 After the petitioner exercised his choice and of his own choice the petitioner decided to retain Survey No. 1628 and to let-go Survey No. 1627, the Mamlatdar & ALT declared Survey No. 1627 admeasuring 6 acres and 24 gunthas as surplus land and took possession of said parcel/survey number of land.

3.5 However, the petitioner felt aggrieved upon declaration of Survey No. 1627 as excess land. According to the petitioner, out of said Survey No. 1627 the Mamlatdar & ALT ought to have and could have taken possession of only 5 acres and 6 gunthas land and the authority should not have taken possession of balance 1 acre and 18 gunthas land i.e. the Mamlatdar ought not have taken possession of entire Survey No. 1627.

3.6 According to the petitioner, he suffered loss of 1 acre and 18 gunthas.

3.7 Therefore, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector rejected the appeal.

3.8 The petitioner, therefore, filed revision application before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal also rejected the revision application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has taken out present petition.

4. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that at the relevant time, the authority declared that the petitioner had excess land to the extent of 5 acres and 6 gunthas. Upon said declaration, the authority declared Survey No. 1627 as excess land, though the area of said Survey No. 1627 is 6 acres and 24 gunthas and took possession of said entire plot and the petitioner, consequently, suffered loss of 1 acre and 88 gunthas. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is owner of adjoining and contiguous land bearing Survey No. 1628. He submitted that the parcel of land, i.e. Survey No. 1628 admeasures 5 acres and 6 gunthas. He submitted that since the petitioner is owner of adjoining land, if the authority had taken possession of only 5 acres and 6 gunthas then also the balance part of land admeasuring 1 acre and 18 gunthas would not have resulted into or it would not have formed or created a fragment. He submitted that the respondents committed mistake in declaring entire Survey No. 1627 as excess land and in taking over possession of entire Survey No. instead of taking possession of land