Prior legal determinations regarding land holdings must be respected in subsequent proceedings, and clubbing of holdings requires careful consideration of established facts.

1. Heard Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Patel, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Vora, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.4.1 to 4.3.

2. In present petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:

"8(A) Your lordship be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11th October 1993, passed by respondent no.2 and the judgment and order dated 26.4.96 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A.1001/93.

(B) Your lordship be pleased to declare that the lands of Shri Bhammarsinh A.61.18 gs. Of village Dhima and of Smt Achuba A.53.23 gs. Of village Duchakwada cannot be clubbed into the holding of late Shri Mafatsinh and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the entire proceedings.

(C) Your lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 13.9.1996 passed by the ld. Tribunal in Review Application No.TEN.C.A.41 of 96."

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order declaring certain extent of land as excess holding with the petitioners. The said order and decision by the competent authority was carried in further proceedings and ultimately the decision came to be confirmed by learned revenue tribunal. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners have taken out present petition.

4. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from impugned orders and from the submissions by learned advocates that with reference to total land holding of present petitioner No / 1/1 the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 . The proceedings against present petitioner No.1/1 were registered as Ceiling Case No.209 of 1976.

4.1 The said case was adjudicated by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Tharad and order dated 31.12.1982 came to be passed with reference to the holding of land by petitioner No.1/1.

4.2 The Mamlatdar & ALT held that the holding of the petitioner No.1/1 was in excess of permissible limit / ceiling and that the petitioner held excess land to the extent of 7 acres.

4.3 Against the said order dated 31.12.1982, the petitioners filed ceiling appeal which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No.12 of 1983. The appellate authority heard the parties and vide order dated 31.5.1983, the appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by petitioner No.1/1. The petitioner herein carried the order dated 31.5.83 before revisional Authority / Tribunal and learned Tribunal rejected the revision application No.123/1983 vide order dated 24.4.1984.

4.4 According to the petitioners, sometime after the appeal and revision application came to be rejected, the Mamlatdar & ALT instituted certain proceedings in respect of holding of land by father of petitioner No.1/1 (who is now represented through his heirs / legal representatives and they are impleaded as party in present proceedings).

4.5 The said proceedings were registered as Ceiling Case No.31 of 1985.

4.6 According to the petitioners, while adjudicating said Ceiling Case No.31 of 1985, the Mamlatdar & ALT also took into account the holding of petitioner No.1/1 which was subject matter of Ceiling Case No.209 of 1976.
4.7 The petitioner No.1/1 contended that after clubbing the land held by him with the holding of his father, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed order dated 15.2.1986 in Ceiling Case No.31 of 1985.

4.8 The said order dated 15.2.1986 was taken in suo - motu revision by Dy. Collector, i.e. respondent No.2, and vide his order dated 30.10.1987, the respondent No.2 - Dy. Collector declared land admeasuring 230.39 gunthas, as surplus.