Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26/12/2008 passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, State of Gujarat in Revision Application No. SRD/HKP/Pancham/13/2005 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the Collector, Panchmahals dated 25/06/2005 in RTS Revision No. 3/2004 by which the Collector, Panchmahals dismissed the application confirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Lunawada Prant in RTS Remand Case No. 6/2003 by declaraing the transaction in favour of the petitioners as illegal and in breach of Section73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 2. This petition has a chequered history. The petitioners claim to be the owners and occupiers of certain portion of land bearing Survey No. 101 paiki, 200 paiki and 358 paiki situated at village Sarasva (west), Taluka Santarampur, District Panchmahals. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the disputed land in question was mortgaged by the original land owner, Shri Dhanji Velji with possession to one Shri Jethalal Sankalchand and accordingly Mutation Entry No. 205 dated 05/09/1960 was recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, Mutation Entry No. 208 was recorded, in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 04/04/1961, showing the land, except the mortgaged land as new tenure. It appears that at the relevant time, the mortgaged land was not considered as new tenure land. Again, thereafter, Mutation Entry No. 232 dated 02/07/1964 was recorded in respect of the oral sale transaction for the mortgaged land in favour of Shri Jethalal Sankalchand. Thereafter, half of the land purchased by Shri Jethalal Sankalchand was sold to one Shri Hema Bhura (father of the respective petitioners) and Mutation Entry No. 233 was recorded on 22/08/1964. Thereafter, the remaining land owned by the original owner came to be purchased, which was owned by Shri Dhanji Velji, by Shri Hema Bhura (father of the respective petitioners) and Mutation Entry No. 241 was recorded on 02/08/1966 in respect of the sale transaction dated 22/04/1966. Thereafter, the remaining land owned by the original owner came to be purchased, which was owned by Shri Dhanji Velji, by Shri Hema Bhura (father of the respective petitioners) and Mutation Entry No. 241 was recorded on 02/08/1966 in respect of the sale transaction dated 22/04/1966. Thereafter, proceedings was initated by the Assistant Collector, Dahod in the proceedings arising for breach of condition under Sectin 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in respect of the sale transactions with respect the disputed land in the year 1978 and it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the said proceedings was dropped in view of Mutuation Entry No. 208 as the disputed land in question was not treated as new tenure. Another Mutation Entry No. 610 was recorded on 26/11/1978, which was certified on 02/06/1979, taking note of the order of the Assistant collector, Dahod dated 17/11/1978. It appears that the Mutation Entries were subject matter before the Collector, Dahod at the instance of one Shri Meghabhai Dhanjibhai and it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the Collector, Dahod refused to take the Mutation Entries in respect of the sale transactions in review on account of inordinate delay in such exercise of powers. Against the order of the Collector, Dahod refusing to take Mutation Entries in respect of the sale transactions in review, Revision Application was preferred before the Secretary (Appeals) and the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) vide judgement and order dated 11/07/2000 remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector (LND-8), Dahod to take a fresh decision with regard to the breach of Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector, Lunavada Prant vide judgement and order dated 29/01/2004 set aside all the transanctions made in respect of the aforesaid lands declaring the same to be illegal vide order passed in RTS Remand Case No. 6/2003 by specifically holding that the transactions in favour of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question is hit by Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The order passed by the Deputy Collector, Lunavada Prant dated 29/01/2004 in RTS Remand Case No. 6/2003 was challenged before the Collector, Panchmahals and the Collector, Panchmahals rejected the Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Lundavada Prant vide order dated 25/06/2005. The order passed by the Deputy Collector, Lunavada Prant dated 29/01/2004 in RTS Remand Case No. 6/2003 was challenged before the Collector, Panchmahals and the Collector, Panchmahals rejected the Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Lundavada Prant vide order dated 25/06/2005. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Revision Application before the learned Secretary (Appeals) and the learned Secretary (Appeals) rejected the RTS Revision Application of the petitioners confirming the order passed by both the authorities below declaring the sale transactions with respect to the disputed land in question as illegal and in breach of Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly made only one submission that earlier when Mutation Entry No. 208 was made, the disputed lands in question were excluded from considering it as new tenure land and subsequently the Assistant Collector, Dahod dropped the proceedings in the year 1978 and the said order passed by the Assistant Collector, Dahod has remained unchallenged and has become final and, therefore, subsequently it was not open for the concerned authority to initiate further proceedings under Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue code. 4. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considering the impugned orders as well as the earlier orders, it appears that the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) dated 11/07/2000 remanding the matter to the Deputy Collector (LND-8), Dahod to take a fresh decision with regard to the breach of Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue code has become final and it has not been challenged by the petitioners at all. On the contrary, on remand, the petitioners participated in the subsequent proceedings and, therefore, now it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the proceedings for breach of Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code could not have been initiated. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the earlier proceedings were with respect to the Mutation Entries and it has been specifically found that Mutation Entry No. 208 was made excluding the disputed lands in question from considering it as new tenure land. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the earlier proceedings were with respect to the Mutation Entries and it has been specifically found that Mutation Entry No. 208 was made excluding the disputed lands in question from considering it as new tenure land. The same was absolute illegal and the same was required to be considered as new tenure land alongwith other lands. There are concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below holding that the disputed lands in question were new tenure land and the transactions with respect to the land in question in favor of the petitioners is hit by Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the same are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No illegalities have been committed by any of the authorities below in passing the impugned order and declaring the sale transaction in favour of the petitioners as illegal and in breach of Section 73-A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 5. In view of the above, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no substance in the present petition, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.