JUDGMENT : MS. BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The petitioner club by way of present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 28.03.2003 (Annexure-J) passed by the Respondent No.1 in Revision Application, whereby the respondent No.1 has confirmed the order dated 26.09.2002 passed by the Respondent No.2Collector (Annexure-I) and also the order dated 06.02.1992 (Annexure-G) passed by the Respondent No.3Deputy Collector as also the order dated 27.05.1980 (Annexure-F) passed by the Respondent No.4 City Survey Superintendent. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was Club established about more than 100 years ago by His Highness Bahadursinhji Mansinhji of Palitana. His Highness had also donated land bearing Survey No.215 for the purpose of establishing the said tennis club. After the independence and after the merger of the states in the year 1949, due to formation of Saurashtra State, the said club was merged in the State as per Clause 9 of the inventory made between His Highness and Suarashtra State (Annexure-C). However, at the request made by His Highness not to merge the said land used for the establishment of club, the State vide the letter dated 10.08.1949 (Annexure-D) had communicated to the Private Secretary to His Highness that the club building would be used as club till it exists, otherwise it would belong to the State. According to the petitioner, thereafter said Club was being used as Club, however, the Respondent No.4 initiated an inquiry under section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Code’) for verifying the status and ownership of the land. 3. According to the petitioner, the Respondent No.4 without issuing any notice to the petitioner or any of its members, passed the order on 27.05.1980, making the entry in favour of the State in the revenue record of Palitana stating that the land belonged to the government as the whereabouts of the occupant/owner were not known. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter possession of the club along with land in question and its furniture and fixtures was taken over by the Respondent No.3-Deputy Collector on 15.12.1991. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter possession of the club along with land in question and its furniture and fixtures was taken over by the Respondent No.3-Deputy Collector on 15.12.1991. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner club had applied for the Sanad for the land in question by its application dated 04.10.1991, however, the petitioner received the reply from the said survey office that the land in question was the property of the state government. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Assistant Collector against the order dated 27.05.1980 passed by the Inquiry Officer City Survey, Palitana. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide the order dated 06.02.1992 (Annexure-F), against which the petitioner preferred revision application before the Respondent No.2Collector. The said order dated 06.02.1992 having been confirmed by the Collector vide the order dated 21.07.1993, the petitioner had preferred Revision Application before the Respondent No.1-S.S.R.D. The said Revision came to be partly allowed by the S.S.R.D. by holding that the said property belonged to the Government vide the order dated 12.05.1999 (Annexure-H), however, the matter as to whether the club was being used as club or not be decided afresh by the Collector after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Collector after the remand of the case vide the order dated 26.09.2002 (Annexure-I) held to the effect that there was no activity being conducted by the members of the club and there was no existence of any legal body of the club. The Collector therefore confirmed the order dated 06.02.1992 passed by the Assistant Collector. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner again preferred the Revision Application before the Respondent No.1-S.S.R.D, who vide the impugned order dated 04.04.2003 (Annexure-J) rejected the said Revision Application in limine. Petitioner therefore has filed the present petition. 4. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi appearing for the petitioner-club that the arbitrary orders passed by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were confirmed by the Respondent No.2-Collector and Respondent No.1-S.S.R.D., though the Respondent No.3-Assistant Collector had not granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner club to show as to whether the petitioner club was existing or not. Relying upon the photographs and the affidavits, learned Advocate Mr.Joshi submitted that the petitioner club was holding the programmes and activities as per its constitution, and that the findings recorded by the Respondent No.2-Collector, were absolutely wrong and based on no evidence. 5. However, learned A.G.P. Venugopal Patel relying upon the impugned orders passed by the Respondent authorities as also the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the activities were being undertaken by the club as per its constitution. According to him, some other persons, who were not members of the club were using the said properties for their personal activities and most of the members of the club had either retired or expired, and therefore, the Collector after considering the material on record had held that the club did not exist. 6. After having heard learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the documents on record as also the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the S.S.R.D., it appears that though as per the inventory made between His Highness and the State, the club had vested in the State as back as in the year 1949, considering the request made by His Highness, the State had permitted to use the property as club so long as it existed. However, the Respondent No.4-City Survey Superintendent after making necessary inquiry, recorded the entry in the city survey that the land belonged to the government as the whereabouts of the occupant/ owner were not known. The petitioner having filed the appeal before the Assistant Collector, the said appeal was rejected vide the order dated 06.02.1992, wherein it was held that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that the petitioner was undertaking any activity of the club. It was also found as per the panchnama drawn on 15.12.1991, that the said property was given on rent to some business firms. It was also recorded that the possession was taken over on behalf of the Government on 15.12.1991 as club was not in existence. The said findings were confirmed by the Collector in his order dated 26.09.2002. It was also found as per the panchnama drawn on 15.12.1991, that the said property was given on rent to some business firms. It was also recorded that the possession was taken over on behalf of the Government on 15.12.1991 as club was not in existence. The said findings were confirmed by the Collector in his order dated 26.09.2002. The Collector had taken into consideration the photographs and other documents produced by the petitioner club and had come to the conclusion that the said photographs were not in respect of the activities undertaken by the petitioner club, and were of the Rotary Club, Palitana. It was specifically held that no activity of club was being conducted in the said property in question, and that the club itself did not exist. The Respondent No.1S.S.R.D. in the revision filed by the petitioner had also confirmed the said findings recorded by the Collector and rejected the revision application of the petitioner-club. 7. Thus, the petitioner club having failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that the club existed or that the club was undertaking the activities as per its constitution, the Court does not find any error in the findings recorded by the respondent authorities. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the respondent authorities the Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings in the present petition. 8. In that view of the matter, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.