Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The petitioner by this petition, has challenged the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal in the main revision as well as in review whereby the order passed by the Deputy Collector has not been interfered with. 2. The short facts of the case are that deceased Dinamai Barjorji Munshi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was holding agricultural land at village Godawadi, Taluka Mandvi, District Surat. Since Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came into force, the declaration was filed by the deceased under the Act. The pertinent aspect is that in the said declaration, the deceased did not mention that she has adopted Keki Dinshaji. The proceedings under the Act were initiated and the Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated 09.11.1987 found that the deceased had adopted son Keki Dinshaji and therefore, he would be entitled to one additional unit and found that the land held was not exceeding the prescribed limit for two units and therefore, the case was withdrawn. The matter was taken up in revision by the Deputy Collector and ultimately, the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 26.12.1988, found that the so called adoption is not genuine nor there is any proper procedure followed nor registered. Hence, he found that the ground of adoption by the so called religious ceremony is a got up one and therefore, separate unit would not be available and he declared the land admeasuring 14 acres and 11 gunthas as surplus land. 3. The deceased carried the matter in revision before the Revenue Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal, vide order dated 31.07.1992, dismissed the revision. The application for review was also submitted by the deceased, but the said review application came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.10.1992. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 4. I have heard Mr. BG Patel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayswal, learned AGP for the respondents. 5. It appears that the Deputy Collector, upon fact finding inquiry, found that the adoption is not genuine and the Revenue Tribunal in revision has found that the interference is not called for to the order passed by the Deputy Collector. 4. I have heard Mr. BG Patel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayswal, learned AGP for the respondents. 5. It appears that the Deputy Collector, upon fact finding inquiry, found that the adoption is not genuine and the Revenue Tribunal in revision has found that the interference is not called for to the order passed by the Deputy Collector. In my view, there are three strong circumstances on the basis of which it cannot be said that the view taken by Deputy Collector and its noninterference by the Revenue Tribunal was not warranted under law or perverse to the record. One is that, at the time when the declaration was made by filing appropriate form under the Act, it was not disclosed by the deceased that she had one adopted son. The second is that the adoption deed is not registered and the third is that no statutory provision is brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector or before the Tribunal or even before this Court which may permit adoption by a Parsi lady. If the adoption is not recognised by law, the question of seeking treatment as lawful son cannot arise. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the view taken by the lower authority cannot be said to be in breach of any statutory provision nor can be said as perverse. In any case, it cannot be said that any error apparent on the face of the record has been committed by the lower authority. 7. Under the circumstances, the petition is meritless. Hence, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.