B.M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner Rameshbhai Chelshanker Oza, claiming to be the banakhat-holder of the subject land bearing Revenue Survey No. 385/1 situated at Village Pal, District Surat. Hence, both the petitions were heard together with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner has mainly prayed for the following reliefs in Special Civil Application No. 538 Of 2015:-

“16(A) Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside order dated 22.12.2014 Annexure-F to this petition dated 22.12.2014 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the observations made by this Hon’ble Court order dated 7.11.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15773 of 2014 and be further pleased to direct respondent authorities to decide Appeal No. 1 of 2012, new number 10 of 2012 on merits after hearing the petitioner and pass a reasoned order by directing the authorities to restore the file of Appeal No. 1 of 2012, new number 10 of 2012 to its original file to its original position.

(B) Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this petition and be further pleased to set aside order dated 22.12.2014 Annexure-F to this petition and be further pleased to set aside all consequential acts and orders done and passed on the basis of the Deputy Collector order dated 22.12.2014 Annexure-F to this petition.”

3. The petitioner has mainly prayed for the following reliefs in Special Civil Application No. 16159 Of 2017:-

“21(A) Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the development permission dated 23.3.2015 granted by Surat Municipal Corporation in breach of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.

(B) Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 9.3.2016 passed by Surat Municipal Corporation by directing Surat Municipal Corporation to decide the representation, 21.8.2015 followed by another representation dated 25.8.2015 strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated time that deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court and be further pleased to direct the respondents to communicate the decision to petitioner.”

4. Both the petitions have been resisted by the concerned respondents by filing their respective affidavits-in-reply to which the petitioner has filed affidavits-in-rejoinder.

5. Though both the petitions have been drafted in a very vague and incomprehensible manner, not stating the correct and material facts, the following facts and chronology of proceedings emerging from the affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondents and the rejoinder filed thereto by the petitioner would show as to how the process of law has been abused and misused by the petitioner, as a Banakhat holder, by filing the proceedings one after the other-

(i) One Nagarbhai Khushalbhai was the owner of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 381, 385, 386 and 387/2. On the death of the said Nagarbhai on 26.6.1944 the names of his legal heirs namely (1) Lallu Nagar, (2) Thakor Nagar, (3) Nagin Nagar and (4) Manilal Nagar came to be mutated in the Revenue Record by Entry No. 888.

(ii) On the partition having been made of the said land, on 7.11.1948 a Revenue Entry No. 1015 came to be made, under which the land bearing Survey No. 385 paiki admeasuring 1 acres 16 gunthas was shown in the name of Nagin Nagar.

(iii) At the relevant time, name of one Ratanji Govindji was shown as the tenant in respect of the said land, however, since he was not cultivating the land, his name was deleted vide order dated 16.2.1954 and the Revenue Entry No. 3061 in that regard was made on 20.6.1959. H