C. K. BUCH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the Id. AGP for the petitioner. ( 2 ) BY invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner-State has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 17. 9. 1990 passed by the gujarat State Revenue Tribunal, ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) while dealing with Revision application No. TEN/b. A/384/89. ( 3 ) IT would be appropriate to state the facts in brief leading to the institution of the present petition. Respondent Vadilal Premchand mehta of village Dhansura on the appointed date was holding agricultural land in sim of 2 different villages viz. Dhansura of Taluka Modasa and village khadol, Taluka Bhayad admeasuring about 54 acres and 17 gunthas. Prescribed form No. 6 was tendered to the authorities and thereafter this Vadilal Premchand mehta was issued with a notice as to why excess land should not be declared as surplus land under the Scheme of Gujarat agricultural Land Ceiling Act. The mamlatdar-ALT, Modasa initiated the proceedings vide Ceiling Case No. 122 of 1976 and after accepting the explanation given by the respondent Vadilal Mehta declared that the family of respondent No. 1 is entitled to hold 2 units having one major son in the family. The decision of mamlatdar-ALT was challenged by way of appeal by the State through Revenue circle Inspector before the Deputy collector being Appeal No. 14 of 1986. ( 4 ) IT was pointed out to the Deputy collector viz. the Appellate Authority that on the appointed date 24. 1-1971 the son of respondent No. l Vadilal was minor and therefore, the finding recorded by the mamlatdar-ALT is erroneous and for this purpose the relevant date of birth was placed before the Deputy Collector by the state. By verifying the documents produced by the parties the Deputy collector held that the son of respondent no. l was minor on the given date. However, considering the other points and over all relevant documentary evidence viz. successive entries in village Form No. 6 and 8a, the Deputy Collector found that vadilal is holding agricultural land as an ancestral property and the Khed khata initially, was in the name of his father i. e. Premchand Kalidas Mehta. This premchand Kalidas Mehta had a younger brother who had died earlier i. e. prior to 24. 1. 1971. Deceased uncle of respondent no. This premchand Kalidas Mehta had a younger brother who had died earlier i. e. prior to 24. 1. 1971. Deceased uncle of respondent no. l viz. Bhikhalal Kalidas Mehta was having undivided equal interest in the agricultural land in question and on the appointed day the widow of Bhikhalal kalidas Mehta was a surviving widow of an agriculturist, undisputedly, residing with the respondent No. 1 and fruits of the agricultural land was used for the benefit and maintenance of the widow of this bhikhalal. It can be said that for the land in question, respondent Vadilal was under a legal obligation and duties even was facing a litigation including a suit for either partition or maintenance. So considering the scheme of, the Act the widow of Bhikhalal was entitled to one independent unit and therefore, assigning independent reasons, the Deputy collectorr ultimately confirmed the finding recorded by Mamlatdar-ALT that the family of respondent No. l is entitled to hold 2 separate units of agricultural land. ( 5 ) THE grievance expressed before the tribunal has been considered from 3 different angles. The Tribunal has accepted the finding, by not accepting the say of state of Gujarat that the Deputy Collector was not Supposed to give his own reasons, can only examine the validity of reasons and has exceeded the jurisdiction, and ought to have appreciated as to whether the finding recorded by the Mamlatdar- alt, on any other point, is either erroneous or a correct finding. ( 6 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the points which were not taken before the Mamlatdar can be considered by the Deputy Collector. Such cases have to be examined by the authority from all angles/points. Ultimately, these authorities were mainly village agriculturists. As per the settled proposition of law, the Appellate Authority can re-write the decision and can confirm the finding on other independent or different ground and if the ultimate finding recorded by subordinate authority, is not found either illegal or erroneous then the same can be upheld on such other separate and independent ground. The tribunal by assigning detailed reasons in the correct logical sequence has confirmed the finding recorded by the Deputy collector. The tribunal by assigning detailed reasons in the correct logical sequence has confirmed the finding recorded by the Deputy collector. ( 7 ) SO it can be said that the finding of fact recorded by two authority that family of respondent Vadilal was entitled to 2 separate units of agricultural land, has been confirmed by the Tribunal and I do not see any reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Deputy Collector. ( 8 ) THE delay caused in preferring the appeal before the Deputy Collector is also not rightly accepted by the Tribunal. The state had again committed similar error of not approaching the Tribunal within time or explainable reasonable time. The tribunal has rightly observed that the delay caused in filing revision application by the State is also not satisfactorily explained. ( 9 ) I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned AGP that the tribunal has thrown out the case of the government on technical plea of limitation. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the decision, meeting with this submission, rendered by the president, Gujarat State Revenue Tribunal which says that the case put forward by the State was considered also on merits simultaneously. In para 6 of the judgment of the Tribunal, it has been observed that;"even on merits find that the deputy Collectors judgment is unassailable. When the lands are found to be ancestral lands Shri Vadilal Mehta tracing from his grand father, naturally his father and his uncle were entitled to equal share and his widowed aunt surviving on 1. 4. 1976 would be entitled to the share of her husband (his uncle) receivable by the aunt, just as his deceased fathers share in the ancestral lands is receivable by his widowed mother, when the property is joint and is ancestral property. This analogy is quite applicable here. Shri Sagar has tried to make much saying that the two lower authorities have adopted different approaches and therefore, both the orders should be treated as unlawful. I cannot find myself in agreement with him in this regard. If the approaches adopted by the lower authorities are legal and proper and based upon cogent evidence, there is nothing wrong in the two authorities coming to the same conclusion, though different paths or approaches. I cannot find myself in agreement with him in this regard. If the approaches adopted by the lower authorities are legal and proper and based upon cogent evidence, there is nothing wrong in the two authorities coming to the same conclusion, though different paths or approaches. In this view of the matter, the revision application fails and it is dismissed both on the ground of limitation as also on merits. " ( 10 ) AS there is no jurisdictional error or any apparent error either on facts or law has been committed by the Tribunal, no interference of this court is required in exercising extra ordinary powers under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, present Special Civil application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition is dismissed in limine. .