JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.7.2021 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department – respondent No.1 in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/Gir/11/2021.

1.1 The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 30.9.2021 passed by respondent No.1 on an application for speaking to minutes preferred by the respondent No.5.

1.2 The petitioner has further prayed for declaration that the impugned order dated 8.7.2021 is vitiated on the ground of locus of respondent No.5 and has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.9.2021 whereby leave to appeal is granted in favour of respondent No.5. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that the application preferred by respondent No.1 before respondent No.1 was not maintainable on the grounds of locus, estoppel and on the ground that no procedure is prescribed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rules framed thereunder for preferring application for speaking to minutes.

2. As the main matter being Revision Application No.MVV/JMN/Gir/11/2021 is pending before the respondent No.1, an agreement was arrived at between the parties during the course of hearing that this Court may only limit itself to determine the aspects about locus of the respondent No.5 and whether any application at the instance of respondent No.5 before the respondent No.1 is maintainable or not while examining the impugned orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.1. Hence, in view of the aforesaid agreement, while deciding this petition, this Court would not touch the merit of the matter.

2.1 Considering the fact that by way of this petition what is sought to be examined is the limited aspect about locus of respondent No.5 and maintainability of the application filed by respondent No.5 seeking leave to appeal before the respondent No.1 while examining the impugned orders dated 8.7.2021 and 30.9.2021, with the consent of the parties, the matter was extensively heard for final hearing on 18.1.2022 and 19.1.2022.

3. Issue rule. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP waives notice of rule on behalf of State respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.5 and Mr. G.H.Virk, learned advocate waives notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.6.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with Mr. Viral Gurjar, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate for respondent No.5 and Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General with Mr. G.H.Virk, learned advocate for respondent No.6.

5. The case of the petitioner is that two parcels of lands bearing survey Nos.633 and 637 of village Sarkhadi, Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Somnath (originally Junagadh district) came to be seized by the State under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 for which a mutation entry No.923 dated 16.12.1965 was recorded in the revenue record.

5.1 As at that time, the petitioner was landless agricultural labour, land bearing survey No.637 paiki admeasuring 11-19 Acres-Gunthas as well as land admeasuring 5-10 Acres-Gunthas of survey No.633 of Village Sarkhadi, Taluka Kodinar, District Gir Kodinar (originally Junagadh district) were allotted to the petitioner on `santhani’ basis. Similarly 17-00 Acres-Gunthas of the land bearing No.637 was allotted to brother of the petitioner viz. Bogha Govind by the Assistant Commissioner, Rajula vide order No.996 dat