Judgment K.M. Thaker, J.—In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have brought under challenge an order dated 21.07.1992 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) whereby the said authority i.e. Respondent No. 1 set aside the order dated 23.06.1989 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. 2. On perusal of the said order, it becomes clear that the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Authority, after hearing the applicant (i.e. present Respondent No. 4) and present petitioners inter alia recorded that (a) the said order dated 23.06.1989 is bad in law also because heirs of the land owner i.e. Shankarlal Nathubhai Tarvadi were not issued any notice and the proceedings were carried on in absence of heirs of the land owner. (b) The proceedings could not have been undertaken in exercise of powers under Section 32 (p) (ii) (c) and in the facts of the case the said provisions were not attracted or applicable. 3. In view of aforesaid findings Respondent No. 1. came to the conclusion that the order dated 23.06.1989 deserved to be set aside. He also came to the conclusion that proper inquiry into the facts involved in the matter was required to be undertaken. Unfortunately, after having recorded such conclusion, the said authority failed to remand the matter to the authority for proper inquiry. 4. So as to determine as to whether the conclusion of the Respondent No. 1 and the directions in the impugned order are justified. It is necessary to look into the facts of the case which gave rise to the proceedings before the Respondent No. 1. The relevant facts can be summarized as follows:— 4.1. The petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of one Shri Chandu Gaga, son of one Mr. Gaga Rama. The petitioner No. 1 is wife of aforesaid Shri Chandu Gaga and the petitioner No. 2 is son of said Shri Chandu Gaga. 4.2. It is the case of the petitioners that aforesaid Shri Gaga Rama, was cultivating a piece of land bearing Survey No. 1696/1 situated in Randeja village. The name of said Shri Gaga Rama was also shown in the records of rights as tenant. 4.3. 4.2. It is the case of the petitioners that aforesaid Shri Gaga Rama, was cultivating a piece of land bearing Survey No. 1696/1 situated in Randeja village. The name of said Shri Gaga Rama was also shown in the records of rights as tenant. 4.3. In support of the said submission, the petitioners have produced on record of present petition village Form No. 6 wherein, entry No. 1808 shows name of Shri Gaga Rama and there does not appear to be any dispute on this count from the side of Respondent No. 2. 4.4. After said Shri Gaga Rama died, his son Chandu Gaga (i.e. father of present petitioner No. 2) started cultivating the said land and he continued cultivating the said land for sometime. It is stated that the said Shri Chandu Gaga died somewhere in 1970. 4.5. The petitioners have contended that when the Tenancy Act came in force, the name of Shri Gaga Rama was shown as tenant and in the year 1957 said Shri Gaga Rama was cutivating the land. As per petitioners, said Shri Gaga Rama and/or his son were, therefore, entitled to purchase the land on payment of purchase price, which may be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 4.6. The petitioners have further stated that though such was the position in law, but since the petitioner No. 1 i.e. wife of said Shri Gaga Rama did not know anything about their rights, she could not act in furtherance of the said right. The petitioners have also stated that petitioner No. 1 was threatened by the owner of the land and also by the authorities and without explaining the position of law to the petitioners and/or said Shri Chandu Gaga, statement of Petitioner No. 1 was recorded to the effect that the tenant in the land in question was not prepared to purchase the land. The petitioners claim that they did not know anything about such statement by Shri Gaga Rama or Shri Chandu Gaga. The petitioners have alleged that no notice was served on them and they were not even properly guided. 4.7. The petitioners have admitted the position that in 1963, the land in question came to be vested in Government and Entry No. 3374 came to be entered into village Form No. 6. The Entry No. 3374 appears to have been made on 20.06.1963. 4.7. The petitioners have admitted the position that in 1963, the land in question came to be vested in Government and Entry No. 3374 came to be entered into village Form No. 6. The Entry No. 3374 appears to have been made on 20.06.1963. The said entry, inter alia. records that proceedings under Section 32(P) were initiated and the tenant, who was entitled to purchase the said land, had declared that he was not interested in purchasing the said land and that therefore, it was ordered to be vested in Government. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners then referred to the order dated 14.09.1979 passed in proceedings under Section 32(1)(b) being Case No. 676/1978 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT recording, inter alia that due inquiry had been undertaken and notice to interested parties were issued and after considering the statement of the interested persons, it was concluded that the tenant’s legal heirs were not entitled to get the right in respect of the said land and proceedings were closed. 6. In support of the said decision four reasons including the fact that the land in question was sold to a third party by way of registered sale-deed, have been recorded. One of the reasons mentioned in the order is that earlier proceedings under Section 32(C) were undertaken and pursuant to such proceedings the tenancy right of the said tenant was deleted. Accordingly, the said proceedings relating to Case No. 676/1978 before the Mamlatdar and ALT were concluded and clsosed. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that Shri Gaga Rama and thereafter Shri Chandu Gaga cultivated the land in question and subsequently petitioner also cultivated the land after death of Shri Chandu Gaga and until 1972-73 they were in possession of the land in question. 7. It is pertinent to note that after the aforesaid order dated 14.09.1979 in Case No. 676/1978, the tenancy Case No. 6018/1988 under Section 32 (p) was initiated. After hearing the parties, the Mamlatdar and ALT passed an order dated 23.06.1989 in said Case No. 6018/1988 in favour of the petitioners and fixed the purchase price and it also directed to grant the land in question to petitioners upon payment of purchase price and subject to conditions under Section 43. 8. After hearing the parties, the Mamlatdar and ALT passed an order dated 23.06.1989 in said Case No. 6018/1988 in favour of the petitioners and fixed the purchase price and it also directed to grant the land in question to petitioners upon payment of purchase price and subject to conditions under Section 43. 8. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the said order dated 23.06.1989 was taken in appeal by the heir of the original land owner. 9. In the said appeal proceedings, the Special Secretary passed an order dated 21.07.1992 holding that, the order dated 23.06.1989 deserved to be set aside. It is pertinent to note that one of the contentions raised by Respondent No. 4 in his above referred appeal was to the effect that before the said order dated 23.06.1989 came to be passed no notice was issued by the authority and the order dated 23.06.1989 was passed without hearing the land owner or the heirs. 10. Upon being aggrieved by the said order dated 21.07.1992, the petitioners are before this Court. 11. Mr. A.K. Mavlekar, Advocate, for Mr. Girish Patel, Advocate for the petitioners, appeared and Mrs. Trusha Patel, AGP, appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 12. Though the notice of rule is served on Respondent No. 4 (cause list shows that the notice is served by affixing). Nobody represented Respondent No. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Mavlanker, learned Advocate, contended that taking the advantage of petitioners’ illiteracy, their rights have been abrogated and when the petitioners, after getting proper guidance preferred the proceedings. Order came to be passed in their favour in the said proceedings, however, the Respondent No. 1 arbitrarily passed the impugned order dated 21.07.1992 whereby the said order dated 23.06.1989, which was in their favour, came to be set aside. The learned Advocate for the petitioners did not make any other submissions except relying on the order dated 23.06.1989. It is pertinent to note that the learned Advocate for the petitioners did not offer any explanation with regard to the findings and observations recorded by Respondent No. 1 in para 5 of the order dated 21.7.1992. 13. Countering the submissions of Mr. Mavlanker, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Trusha Patel, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. It is pertinent to note that the learned Advocate for the petitioners did not offer any explanation with regard to the findings and observations recorded by Respondent No. 1 in para 5 of the order dated 21.7.1992. 13. Countering the submissions of Mr. Mavlanker, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Trusha Patel, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, supported the order dated 21.07.1992 and contended that after the Entry No. 3374 dated 20.06.1963 in village Form No. 6 neither the petitioners nor the said original tenant had any right of whatsoever nature in respect of the lands in question and that the order dated 23.06.1989 was errorneous and deserved to be set aside, more particularly, because it was passed without issuing notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing to the original land owner or his heirs. She further submitted that neither the Entry No. 3374 dated 20.06.1963 nor the order dated 14.09.1979 were challenged, in reasonable time, by petitioners and it was only in 1988 i.e. after almost 9 years since the order dated 14.09.1979 that the petitioners for the first time lodged their claim. 14. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in response to the petitioner’s contention that when the lands in question were vested in Government there was no question of affording opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 4. Ms. Patel, learned AGP, submitted that though the said Entry No. 3374 was passed in June. 1963, the consequential actions, necessary to be undertaken pursuant to such entry, were not taken by the Government inasmuch as it was necessary to formally take possession of the land in question in accordance with law and after following prescribed procedure but that was not done and the possession continued with the land owner. In support of her said submission, she relied upon the findings and observations recorded by Respondent No. 1 in the order dated 21.07.1992 wherein the authority has recorded that even if it is presumed that the original land owner had taken over the possession illegally, then also, the proceedings under Section 84(C) were required to be undertaken and in absence of such proceedings, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. In this view of the matter, Ms. In this view of the matter, Ms. Patel, learned AGP, submitted that the order dated 21.07.1992 is legal and proper and does not suffer from any error of law, much less of jurisdiction and that therefore, does not deserve to be set aside as prayed for by the petitioners. She further contended that in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the said order may not be interfered with since there is no error of jurisdiction. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 38. During her submissions, learned AGP, relied on the judgment in case between Rahubha Jivubha & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 (1) GLR 805 wherein, this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Divecha, as his Lordships then was) held at Para-5 that. “5. It cannot be gainsaid that a decree is a judicial order. What applies to a judicial order would apply with equal force to a quasi-Judicial order. A quasi-judicial order against or in favour of a dead man would be a nullity. In that view of the matter, the impugned order at Annexure–A to this petition has to be styled as a nullity. An order or a decision affirming a nullity would by itself be a nullity. In that view of the matter, the Appellate order at Annexure–B to this petition and the decision at Annexure–C to this petition have also to be styled as null and void.” She relied on the said judgment to support the finding of Respondent No. 1 in the order dated 21.07.1992 to the effect that the proceedings carried out by the authority while passing the order dated 23.06.1989 were untenable because the said order was passed against the rights of a dead person and that too without bringing heirs on record and /or without issuing notices to the heirs of the original land owner. Learned AGP also relied upon other judgments wherein the same view has been taken viz. judgments reported in 1997 (Vol. 18) GLR 504 and 1977 (Vol. 18) GLR 883. 15. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Mavlanker, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Patel, learned AGP. Learned AGP also relied upon other judgments wherein the same view has been taken viz. judgments reported in 1997 (Vol. 18) GLR 504 and 1977 (Vol. 18) GLR 883. 15. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Mavlanker, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Patel, learned AGP. On perusal of the said order dated 23.06.1989, it transpires that before passing the said order, the concerned authority had not issued notice to anyone and merely on the basis of the application made by the petitioners, the said order was passed. Before passing the said order, the competent authority also failed to take note of the order dated 14.09.1979. It is pertinent to note that the said order dated 14.09.1979 was passed in proceedings under Section 32(1)(b) and the statement of the Petitioner No. 1 was recorded, but unfortunately, as aforesaid, the said order was lost sight of or ignored by the authority while passing the order dated 23.06.1989. It is also relevant to note that the said order dated 14.09.1979 was not challenged by anyone and even the petitioners did not take any action with reference to or pursuant to the said order dated 14.09.1979 for long time i.e. at least till 1988. In that view of the matter, the said order dated 14.09.1979 had become final and yet it was not taken into consideration by the competent authority while passing the order dated 23.06.1989. 16. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that in the impugned order dated 21.07.1992 it is mentioned that by the time the said order dated 23.06.1989 came to be passed, the original land owner expired. It is in such background of facts that the authority, who passed the order dated 21.07.1992 recorded that the order dated 23.06.1989 was passed qua a person who had already expired and no notices to his heirs were issued. In background of such facts and circumstances the appeal was filed by Respondent No. 4 against, the said order dated 23.06.1989. In the said proceedings notices were issued to the petitioners and on 18.11.1991, the petitioners had remained present. In background of such facts and circumstances the appeal was filed by Respondent No. 4 against, the said order dated 23.06.1989. In the said proceedings notices were issued to the petitioners and on 18.11.1991, the petitioners had remained present. During the hearing of the said appeal it was asserted by applicant i.e. Respondent No. 4 herein that since last many years the land was not cultivated and the land in question was in actual possession of the land owner, meaning thereby, despite the Entry No. 3374 passed way back in 1963, the actual possession of the land in question was not taken over by the Government and the land owner continued to be in possession of the lands in question. The said factual aspects do not appear to have been disputed by the petitioners during the hearing before the said authority and are not disputed in this proceedings also, either by petitioner or by Respondents No. 1 to 3. 17. It was in light of such facts and circumstances that the Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 21.07.1992 holding, for the reasons recorded in the said order, that the order dated 26.03.1989 was unsustainable and he therefore, set aside the said order. What is relevant is that while setting aside the order dated 23.06.1989 the Respondent No. 1 has, in the order observed and recorded that it would be open for the non-applicant i.e. the petitioners herein to take out appropriate proceedings including appeal proceedings. Further, the said authority has also directed to initiate appropriate proceedings as per the observations and directions in the said order dated 21. 07.1992 and more particularly, in light of directions given in the order and after taking into account the facts and circumstance mentioned in the order, particularly, the fact that pursuant to the Entry No. 3374 of June, 1963 the land vested into the Government and that before passing the order dated 26.03.1989, the procedure prescribed under Section 32(P) i.e. holding of formal inquiry was not followed. In that view of the matter it is not possible to hold that the order dated 21.07.1992 suffers from any jurisdictional error or that it is perverse. The said authority has also directed to conduct appropriate proceedings under the Act and in accordance with the directions given in the order. In that view of the matter it is not possible to hold that the order dated 21.07.1992 suffers from any jurisdictional error or that it is perverse. The said authority has also directed to conduct appropriate proceedings under the Act and in accordance with the directions given in the order. Therefore, also, there is no just reasons to interfere with the said order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, clarified that the competent authority shall initiate and carry out appropriate inquiry and proceedings as per the directions given by the Respondent No. 1 in the order dated 21.07.1992 and for that purpose the case shall stand remanded to the authority who is directed to conduct the proceedings as per order dated 21.07.1992 Mr. Mavlanker. Advocate, submitted that appropriate directions may be passed to the authority to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners when the proceedings as per the directions of Respondent No. 1 in the order dated 21.07.1992 are undertaken. It goes without saying that when the competent authority initiates proceedings as per the directions in the order dated 21.07.1992, it shall have to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners after giving due notices. As observed by the authority in the said order, it will also be open to the petitioners to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and subject to the provisions of the Act. 18. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any stands vacated. No order as to costs.