JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

The captioned two appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from common judgment dated 24.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the two Writ Petitions one of which was preferred by original landowners and the second one by the purchasers of the land in question.

1.1 The purchaser, upon being aggrieved by the order dated 24.4.1990/20.6.1990, confirming the order made by the Collector, preferred the Writ Petition being SCA No. 8846 of 1990. So far as the original landowner is concerned, he, upon being aggrieved by some of the observations in the same order dated 24.4.1990/20.6.1990 preferred the Writ Petition being SCA No. 740 of 1991. Since the order under challenge in both the petitions was common and involved common facts the learned Single Judge heard and decided the two petitions by the common judgment against which the purchaser-has preferred the two appeals.

2. The facts involved in and relevant for the purpose of considering and deciding present appeals can be summarised as follows:-

2.1 The original landowners owned lands bearing Survey No. 67/1, 67/2, 68 and 70/4 comprising Block No. 218. Out of the said parcels of land, the land bearing Survey No. 68 admeasuring 16 Acres and 21 Gunthas was purchased by the appellant in June 1983 vide registered sale deed dated 21.6.1983. After execution of the said transaction, entry No. 3075 dated 15.12.1987 was made in the revenue record and subsequently the said entry was certified on 21.1.1988 by the Mamlatdar, Viramgar.

2.2 The Collector, Ahmedabad noticed and scrutinised the aforesaid transaction, and formed the opinion that the transaction was in violation of the provision of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 ("the Act" for short). Hence, the proceedings under the Act were initiated through the Deputy Collector, Viramgam.

2.3 The Deputy Collector, Viramgam conducted the proceedings registered as Consolidation Case No. 13 of 1989. During the proceedings, the appellants filed their reply raising various contentions.

Upon hearing the appellants and after examination of the record, the Competent Authority came to the conclusion that though the consolidation scheme was in force in the village, prior permission of the Collector was not obtained before entering into and executing the said transaction and that therefore there was breach of provision under Section 31 (1)(b) of the Act. The Competent Officer, therefore, passed order dated 29.11.1989 under Section 9 of the Act recording the aforesaid conclusion and thereupon directing that the entry No. 3075 be cancelled. The Competent Officer also issued other consequential directions.

2.4 Aggrieved by the said order the appellants preferred Revision Application No. 1 of 1990 before the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeals) Revenue. The Revisional Authority heard the purchasers-present appellants.

After hearing the aggrieved party, the Revisional Authority passed the order dated 24.4.1990/20.6.1990 whereby the Revisional Authority rejected the Revision Application and confirmed the order of the Competent Officer. The Revisional Authority further directed that the transaction in question being in violation of Section 31 read with Section 9 of the Act, the land shall vest in Government. As a consequential direction, the Revisional Authority also directed that the purchasers (i.e. present appellants) be removed from the occupation of land in question.

2.5 Aggrieved by the said order dated 24.4.1990/20.6.1990 the purchasers appellant filed the Writ Petition being SCA No. 8846 of 1990.

2.6 Upon being aggrieved by the later portion of the same order and consequential direction viz the direction vesting the land in question in Government, the original landowners also preferred Writ Petition being SCA No. 740 of 1991 claiming that the land in question should revert to them, (i.e. to the original landowners).

2.7 After considering the rival contentions, the learned Singl