Mr. K.M. Thaker, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. P.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for the respondent - State.
(2.) In present petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:- "15. (B) to set aside the judgment and order dated 31st July 1991 passed by the respondent No. 3 the Mamlatdar Limbdi and which is confirmed in Appeal No. 3 of 91-92 by the Deputy Collector, Limbdi dated 27th May 1992 and which came to be confirmed by the learned Tribunal in TEN.BP/1/588/92, through any other appropriate writ, or order be issued setting aside may kindly be issued. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT Limbdi on 31st July 1991 and confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Limbdi in Ceiling Case No. 4 of 1991-92 and confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in TNB-591-92 may kindly be stayed."
(3.) So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 Shri Hadala Bhal Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust") claims that it is engaged in charitable activity and for that purpose it received certain parcels of land by way of donation from different persons and the said parcels of land are used for different activities undertaken by the trust. 1 It appears that somewhere in 1976-77 Mamlatdar initiated proceedings [Case No. 18/76-77] under Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ceiling Act") on the ground that the trust held land in excess of prescribed ceiling limit. 2 The said proceedings were instituted on the premise that the trust held 155 Acres and 30 Gunthas land whereas it would be entitled to hold only 1 unit (54 Acres of land). 3 After issuing notice the Mamlatdar adjudicated the ceiling case and vide order dated 24.6.1985 the Mamlatdar held that the trust held 101 Acres and 30 Gunthas in excess of the permissible ceiling limit. 4 Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner trust filed Appeal before the Deputy Collector which was registered as Appeal No. 67 of 1984. The Deputy Collector rejected the appeal vide his order dated 30.11.1985. The Deputy Collector confirmed the order of Mamlatdar dated 24.6.1985. 5 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.1985 passed by Deputy Collector the petitioner filed Revision Application before learned Tribunal which was registered as Revision Application No. 157 of 1986. 6 During pendency of the said proceedings before learned tribunal the petitioner initiated certain proceedings before the Charity Commissioner under provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. 7 It appears that said proceedings were concluded vide order dated 23.6.1989. It also appears that the petitioner placed said order dated 23.6.1989 on record of revision application No. 157/1986 before learned tribunal. 8 After considering said order dated 23.6.1989 by the Charity Commissioner the learned Tribunal passed order dated 20.2.1990 and remanded the case to Mamlatdar for fresh decision. 9 Thereafter the Mamlatdar adjudicated remand proceedings which was registered as Ceiling Case No. 4 of 1976-77. 10 After hearing the petitioner the Mamlatdar passed order dated 31.7.1991 holding, inter alia, that trust held 54 Acres and 22 Gunthas land in excess over permissible ceiling limit. 11 At this stage it is necessary to note that after remand order dated 20.2.1990 passed by the learned tribunal, the Mamlatdar had issued notice to six trusts (whereas initially proceedings were instituted against Shri Hadala Bhal Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust on the premise that the said trust held 155 Acres and 30 Gunthas of land). 12 The Mamlatdar passed order dated 27.5.1992 whereby the Mamlatdar dropped the notice qua 5 trusts. 13 When the petitioner trust filed appeal before Deputy Collector against Mamlatdar's order dated 31.7.1991 the State also filed appeal before the Deputy Collector against order dated 27.5.1992 passed by the Mamlatdar. 14 The appeal field by the trust and the State were heard together and decided by the Deputy Collector. 15 The deputy collector rejected the appeal filed by the trust and allowed the appeal filed by the State. In his order, the deputy Collector held that the trust was entitled to hold only one unit and that therefore actual extent of excess land held by the trust was Acre 101.30 Gunthas. 16 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 27.5.1992 the petitioner trust filed separate revision applications before learned Tribunal which was registered as Revision Application No. 588 of 1992 to 591 of 1992. Learned Tribunal heard the petitioner and decided the said revision application by common order dated 10.10.1994, whereby the revision applications filed by present petitioner against order dated 27.5.1992 passed by Deputy Collector came to be dismissed and the said order dated 27.5.1992 passed by the Deputy Collector came to be confirmed. 17 Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and learned Tribunal the petitioner filed present petition. ;