( 1 ) THE short facts of the case are that the deceased Bhikhabhai Parsottambhai Modi was holding various agricultural lands at Aulpad Taluka in different villages. The Mamlatdar and ALT conducted the proceedings under Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in Ceiling Case No. 742 of 1976 in respect of the land held by Yongendrakumar and Others being legal heirs of the deceased Bhikhabhai and passed the order on 13th October, 1987, whereby it was concluded that on 1. 4. 1976 the lands held by the land-holder was 19 acres and 24 gunthas. So far as 6 acres and 16 gunthas of the land is concerned, it was earlier in possession of the tenant for some years and in the tenancy proceedings, the tenant was declared as purchaser and, therefore, the said land was excluded. Furthermore, for the land admeasuring 1 acres and 1 guntha, as the said area had gone in road and field canal etc. , the said land was also excluded. ( 2 ) THE said order of the Mamlatdar was taken in suo motu revision by Dy. Collector being Ceiling Revision Case No. 138 of 1988, which came to be decided on 7. 7. 1988 and as per the decision of the Dy. Collector, the findings of the Mamlatdar was not confirmed and it was considered that the total area was 27 acres and 1 guntha, which include the land for which the order was passed in favour of the tenant and the land which was deducted for road and canal was also included. The said order of the Dy. Collector came to be challenged by the respondent before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being Revision Application No. 304 of 1988. The Tribunal passed the judgement on 29. 6. 1992 for quashing and setting aside the order of the Dy. Collector and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT. It is under these circumstances, the State Government has approached this Court by preferring the present petition for challenging the order, which was passed by the Tribunal in the year 1992, but the petition was preferred in the year 1998. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Desai, learned AGP for the petitioner State Government and Mr. Kharadi, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Desai, learned AGP for the petitioner State Government and Mr. Kharadi, learned Counsel for the respondent. It appears that two aspects may have the relevance for the purpose of deciding the present petition; one is the holding by the owner, whether includes the land held by the tenant or not. Section 2 (15) of the Act defines the words "to hold land", which reads as under:2 (15) "to hold land" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means to be lawfully in actual possession of land as owner or tenant, as the case may be; provided that in the case of land mortgaged with possession- (a) if it is not in the actual possession of the tenant, the mortgagor shall be deemed to hold it as owner, and (b) if it is in the actual possession of a person as a tenant thereof, such person shall be deemed to hold it as a tenant;"therefore, holding of the land as owner or tenant in both capacities are included, but such holding will be considered if the owner or the tenant is in actual possession. Therefore, holding in both the capacities are to be considered for the purpose of computation of the ceiling limit as per the Act. Section 7 (1) of the Act, putting restriction on the transfer, reads as under:"7 Restrictions on transfers of sub-divisions of land and consequences of transfer of sub-division made in contravention thereof " (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no land shall, after the appointed day, be - (a) transferred whether by way of sale (including sale in execution of a decree of a Civil Court of an award or order of any other competent authority) or by way of gift, exchange, lease or otherwise, or (b) sub-divided (including sub-division by a decree or order of a Civil Court or any other competent authority) whether by [partition, family arrangement] or otherwise, except with the permission in writing of the Collector. " ( 4 ) THE language of Sub-section (1) refers to the prohibition of the transfer by way of sale, including the sale in execution of the decree of the Civil Court or of an award or of an order of any other competent authority, except with the previous permission by the Collector, if the transfer is affected, the same is barred. ( 5 ) IT is true that as per the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, the transfer by way of sale, including under the order of other competent authority is barred, but such may apply only if the land is included in the holding of the person concerned. ( 6 ) AS per the provisions of the Act and more particularly, definition under Section 2 (15) while making computation of the holding the land in actual possession by the owner is to be considered in contra-distinction with the land in actual possession of the tenant. Therefore, the land in actual possession of the tenant, if ultimately is established, the same deserves to be excluded for the purpose of computing the holding and such land deserves to be included for the purpose of computation of ceiling limit in the holding of the tenant. ( 7 ) IF the facts of the present case are considered it appears that it came on record that it was established that the land was in possession of the tenant Kantibhai since 1967-68 and in the proceedings under the Tenancy Act the order is also passed permitting the tenant to purchase the land. The findings of the Mamlatdar is that on the appointed day, i. e. on 24. 1. 1971, the land was not in possession of the owner. Thea aforesaid finding of facts is confirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not undertake the re-appreciation of the evidence, where the finding of facts upon the appreciation and re-appreciation is confirmed by the two lower authorities. It is not the case of the petitioner State Government that such finding of facts is perverse to the record. Therefore, if such finding of facts is to prevail, the conclusion would be that such land would go outside the computation of holding by the owner of the land. It is not the case of the petitioner State Government that such finding of facts is perverse to the record. Therefore, if such finding of facts is to prevail, the conclusion would be that such land would go outside the computation of holding by the owner of the land. The Tribunal has taken the same view and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error apparent on the face of record. ( 8 ) EVEN on the aspects of computation of the land by excluding the land, which has been utilized for road and canal purpose, it cannot be said that the lower authorities have committed any error while exercising the jurisdiction, nor is there any perversity in exercise of the discretion. ( 9 ) IT may also be observed that the impugned order of 29. 6. 1992 is challenged by the State Government after a period of about six years by preferring the petition in the year 1998. There is no explanation whatsoever averred or stated in the petition for such a long delay of six years and, therefore, the petition can also be said as hopelessly barred. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, the petition fails. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.