Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1.1 These two Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 10.11.1998 passed by the Trial Court (City Civil Court, Ahmedabad) in Civil Suit No.2166 of 1977 and Civil Suit No.2397 of 1978.

1.2 The appellant in both the appeals is the same Authority (the District Collector, Banskantha at Palanpur). The suit land in both the suits is also the same.

1.3 The present appellant had filed Civil Suit No.2166 of 1977 to recover the vacant possession of the suit land and mesne profit from the defendant - the present respondent. The said suit is dismissed by the Trial Court, qua the principal relief, seeking possession of the suit land from the defendant. The said defendant (of Civil Suit No.2166 of 1977) was the plaintiff of Civil Suit No.2397 of 1978. In the said suit (i.e. Civil Suit No.2397 of 1978), the said plaintiff (i.e. the present respondent) had prayed for specific performance of an agreement to sell (pertaining to the very same land). The Trial Court has decreed the said suit.

1.4 The above two parts of the said common judgment and decree is challenged in these two appeals being First Appeal No.538 and 537 of 1999, respectively. In other words, challenge in First Appeal No.537 of 1999 is made by the original defendant to the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No.2397 of 1978. In First Appeal No.538 of 1999, challenge is made by the original plaintiff to the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No.2166 of 1977.

1.5 So far the second prayer in Civil Suit No.2166 of 1977 (pertaining to mesne profit) is concerned, the Trial Court has granted Rs. 500/- per month towards mesne profit. That part is not under challenge and therefore the same is not gone into by this Court.

2. Heard learned advocates. It is noted that, learned senior advocates for both the sides have extensively taken this Court through the record and proceedings of the Trial Court. The said Record is considered by this Court in original. It is also noted that, learned senior advocates for both the sides have read the judgment of the Trial Court almost line by line.

3……

3.1 Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned senior advocate for the appellant has submitted that, the Trial Court fell in error, on more than one points, while recording the impugned judgment. It is submitted that, the findings and the final judgment of the Trial Court is erroneous to the extent it has allowed Civil Suit No.2397 of 1978 and also to the extent, it has dismissed Civil Suit No.2166 of 1977. It is submitted that, the present respondent is not entitled to get any relief as the plaintiff (in Civil Suit No.2397 of 1978), which the Trial Court has granted, and further that the present appellant is entitled to get back the possession of the suit land from the present respondent (standing as the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.2166 of 1977), which the Trial Court has not granted.

3.2 It is submitted that, the reasons recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous inasmuch as while deciding the matter qua specific performance, there could not be any parameter like compliance of principles of natural justice, which has weighed with the Trial Court. It is submitted that when it comes to the question of specific performance of an agreement to sell, it is governed by the stipulations in the agreement and compliance of the principles of natural justice has no play in it. It is submitted that thus, the conclusion of the Trial Court that there was illegality on the part of the present appellant, since there was violation of the principles of natural justice, is ill-founded. It is submitted that the same calls for interference.

3.3 Mr. Shelat, learned senior advocate has further submitted that, one of the factors which weighed with the Trial Court is that, the present respondent had sent communication dated 31.03.1975 (Exh.86) to the Government, intimating therein specific amount, which according to him was payable to the Government, for which, he had asked for confirmation of the State Authorit