JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for the respondent-State. 2. In present petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter-alia, that:- "15. (B) to set aside the judgment and order dated 31st July 1991 passed by the respondent No. 3 the Mamlatdar Limbdi and which is confirmed in Appeal No. 3 of 91-92 by the Deputy Collector, Limbdi dated 27th May 1992 and which came to be confirmed by the learned Tribunal in TEN.BP/1/588/92, through any other appropriate writ, or order be issued setting aside may kindly be issued. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT Limbdi on 31st July 1991 and confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Limbdi in Ceiling Case No. 4 of 1991-92 and confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in TNB-591-92 may kindly be stayed." 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 Shri Hadala Bhal Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust") claims that it is engaged in charitable activity and for that purpose it received certain parcels of land by way of donation from different persons and the said parcels of land are used for different activities undertaken by the trust. 3.1 It appears that somewhere in 1976-77 Mamlatdar initiated proceedings [Case No. 18/76-77] under Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ceiling Act") on the ground that the trust held land in excess of prescribed ceiling limit. 3.2 The said proceedings were instituted on the premise that the trust held 155 Acres and 30 Gunthas land whereas it would be entitled to hold only 1 unit (54 Acres of land). 3.3 After issuing notice the Mamlatdar adjudicated the ceiling case and vide order dated 24.6.1985 the Mamlatdar held that the trust held 101 Acres and 30 Gunthas in excess of the permissible ceiling limit. 3.4 Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner trust filed Appeal before the Deputy Collector which was registered as Appeal No. 67 of 1984. The Deputy Collector rejected the appeal vide his order dated 30.11.1985. The Deputy Collector confirmed the order of Mamlatdar dated 24.6.1985. 3.4 Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner trust filed Appeal before the Deputy Collector which was registered as Appeal No. 67 of 1984. The Deputy Collector rejected the appeal vide his order dated 30.11.1985. The Deputy Collector confirmed the order of Mamlatdar dated 24.6.1985. 3.5 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.1985 passed by Deputy Collector the petitioner filed Revision Application before learned Tribunal which was registered as Revision Application No. 157 of 1986. 3.6 During pendency of the said proceedings before learned tribunal the petitioner initiated certain proceedings before the Charity Commissioner under provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. 3.7 It appears that said proceedings were concluded vide order dated 23.6.1989. It also appears that the petitioner placed said order dated 23.6.1989 on record of revision application No. 157/1986 before learned tribunal. 3.8 After considering said order dated 23.6.1989 by the Charity Commissioner the learned Tribunal passed order dated 20.2.1990 and remanded the case to Mamlatdar for fresh decision. 3.9 Thereafter the Mamlatdar adjudicated remand proceedings which was registered as Ceiling Case No. 4 of 1976-77. 3.10 After hearing the petitioner the Mamlatdar passed order dated 31.7.1991 holding, inter-alia, that trust held 54 Acres and 22 Gunthas land in excess over permissible ceiling limit. 3.11 At this stage it is necessary to note that after remand order dated 20.2.1990 passed by the learned tribunal, the Mamlatdar had issued notice to six trusts (whereas initially proceedings were instituted against Shri Hadala Bhal Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust on the premise that the said trust held 155 Acres and 30 Gunthas of land). 3.12 The Mamlatdar passed order dated 27.5.1992 whereby the Mamlatdar dropped the notice qua 5 trusts. 3.13 When the petitioner trust filed appeal before Deputy Collector against Mamlatdar's order dated 31.7.1991 the State also filed appeal before the Deputy Collector against order dated 27.5.1992 passed by the Mamlatdar. 3.14 The appeal field by the trust and the State were heard together and decided by the Deputy Collector. 3.15 The deputy collector rejected the appeal filed by the trust and allowed the appeal filed by the State. In his order, the deputy Collector held that the trust was entitled to hold only one unit and that therefore actual extent of excess land held by the trust was Acre 101.30 Gunthas. 3.15 The deputy collector rejected the appeal filed by the trust and allowed the appeal filed by the State. In his order, the deputy Collector held that the trust was entitled to hold only one unit and that therefore actual extent of excess land held by the trust was Acre 101.30 Gunthas. 3.16 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 27.5.1992 the petitioner trust filed separate revision applications before learned Tribunal which was registered as Revision Application No. 588 of 1992 to 591 of 1992. Learned Tribunal heard the petitioner and decided the said revision application by common order dated 10.10.1994, whereby the revision applications filed by present petitioner against order dated 27.5.1992 passed by Deputy Collector came to be dismissed and the said order dated 27.5.1992 passed by the Deputy Collector came to be confirmed. 3.17 Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and learned Tribunal the petitioner filed present petition. 4. Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the authorities as well as learned tribunal have failed to take into account the decision by the charity commissioner and the authority as well as tribunal failed to appreciate that in view of the order passed by the charity commissioner, six trusts were required to be considered as different entity and their holding should be considered separate holding, however, deputy collector and the learned tribunal failed to appreciate the said contention and committed error in its conclusion that entire holding of land was to be considered that of the petitioner trust because the position which obtained before 1.4.1976 should be taken into consideration. 4.1 Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner also relied on certain documents which, allegedly had been issued by the authority under Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner while relying on the said document submitted that the said documents support the claim of the petitioner that actually there were different trusts and the trusts held the lands in question since long time, even before 1955, which aspect is reflected from the said certificate issued by the competent authority under the Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner while relying on the said document submitted that the said documents support the claim of the petitioner that actually there were different trusts and the trusts held the lands in question since long time, even before 1955, which aspect is reflected from the said certificate issued by the competent authority under the Act. 4.2 According to learned advocate for the petitioner the authority and the learned tribunal failed to take into account said document and by ignoring said documents, the authority and learned tribunal have committed error in holding that at the relevant time i.e. before 1.4.1976 there was only one trust and the said trust held 155 Acres and 30 Gunthas of land which was in excess of permissible ceiling because trust would be entitled to hold only one unit. 4.3 On strength of the said submission learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and it should be declared that the petitioner No. 1 does not hold any land in excess. Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the decision in case between Ishwarlal Nanalal vs. Ghanchi Chimanlal, 1963 GLR 767, Kuberbhai Shivdas vs. Mahant Purshottamdas Kalyandas, 1961 GLR 564 , Vileshkumar Shantilal Acharya vs. Dhansukhlal J. Gajjar, 1985 GLH 889 , Sherasiya Saji Alavadi Momin vs. State of Gujarat, 1985 (1) GLR 513 , Bhupendra Rasiklal Kapadia vs. Jayantilal Vrajlal Shah, 1982 GLH 1055 . 5. Mr. Mehta, learned AGP submitted that at the relevant time there was only one trust and it was only at later stage i.e. after Mamlatdar commenced proceedings in 1976-1977 that the petitioner No. 1 realized that it was holding excess land and to get out of the said situation the petitioner No. 1 created different arrangements viz. creation of the different trusts and by paper transaction the petitioner No. 1 transferred certain lands to said other, subsequently created, trusts so that there would be distribution/transfer of lands in such a manner that any trust would not hold land in excess of permission ceiling limit. 5.1 According to Mr. Mehta, learned AGP such arrangement cannot be taken into account inasmuch as for the purpose of determining as to whether any excess land is held or not, relevant date would be 1.4.1976. 5.1 According to Mr. Mehta, learned AGP such arrangement cannot be taken into account inasmuch as for the purpose of determining as to whether any excess land is held or not, relevant date would be 1.4.1976. He submitted that the learned tribunal has taken into account the said aspect and therefore arrangement placed in effect by the petitioner subsequently i.e. after 1.4.1976 (on strength of which the petitioner approached charity commissioner where the said authority passed order in 1989), is not considered by the learned tribunal that being subsequent event and transaction and therefore there is no error in the order passed by the Deputy Collector and/or by the learned Tribunal. 5.2 So as to support his submission learned AGP relied on factual aspect discussed and mentioned by the learned tribunal in its order dated 10.10.1994 and he submitted that the petition does not deserve to be entertained. He submitted that the petitioner No. 1 had earlier preferred application under Section 3 of the Act for exemption and the said application was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 19.1.1984 and the said order has never been challenged by the petitioner No. 1. Mr. Mehta, learned AGP also emphasized that six different trusts were created in March 1989 and that therefore the said arrangement/transfer of land to the different trusts cannot be taken into account. According to the learned AGP the said arrangement/transfer was made with intention to defeat provisions of Ceiling Act. learned AGP would further submit that in view of the provisions under Ceiling Act, the order passed by the Charity Commissioner could not be read to mean that it would prevail over the decision by the competent authority under the Ceiling Act. On strength of such submission learned AGP submitted that petition may not be entertained and orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the learned Tribunal may not be interfered with. 6. I have considered submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP. I have also considered the material available on record and the impugned orders. 7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention at this stage that, actually, this petition was decided earlier vide judgment dated 7.5.2009. The said decision was carried in appeal by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1103 of 2010. I have also considered the material available on record and the impugned orders. 7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention at this stage that, actually, this petition was decided earlier vide judgment dated 7.5.2009. The said decision was carried in appeal by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1103 of 2010. The Division Bench set aside the decision dated 7.5.2009 on limited ground that certain contentions raised by learned AGP were not addressed and dealt with by learned Single Judge while deciding Special Civil Application No. 1742 of 1995 vide decision dated 7.5.2009. With said observations and on said ground, the Division Bench remanded the matter for re-consideration and fresh decision by learned Single Judge. 7.1 At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that prior to remand of the proceedings by learned Tribunal vide its earlier decision dated 20.2.1990 and even in the second round after the remand order dated 20.2.1990, the decisions by the authority have been against the petitioner. The authorities concluded that the petitioner trust held 101 acres and 30 gunthas of land in excess of permissible land. The order dated 31.7.1991 is one order wherein the Mamlatdar reached to the conclusion that the excess holding land of petitioner trust is 54 acres. However, said decision is upturned by Dy. Collector vide his order dated 27.5.1992 which is subsequently confirmed by learned Tribunal. 8. It is not in dispute that the total holding of land which is involved in present petition is 155 acres and 30 gunthas. 8.1 According to the findings recorded by learned Tribunal, at the relevant time, i.e. as on 1.4.1976, there was only one trust namely Adalabal Sarvajanik Rahatmandal trust and the said trust held 155 acres and 30 gunthas of land. The learned Tribunal has, upon verification of record, also reached to the conclusion, that the said trust was originally/ initially incorporated and registered as society in 1962 and subsequently, in August, 1964 it was registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. At that time also, there was only one entity i.e. the petitioner trust. The learned Tribunal has, upon verification of record, also reached to the conclusion, that the said trust was originally/ initially incorporated and registered as society in 1962 and subsequently, in August, 1964 it was registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. At that time also, there was only one entity i.e. the petitioner trust. According to the findings recorded in the impugned order by the learned Tribunal, it was only in 1989 when the proceedings in form of revision application No. 157 of 1986 were pending before the learned Tribunal that the petitioner, after reorganizing its affair, approached charity commissioner whereby it constituted five different trusts i.e. in all six trusts and transferred the lands to the subsequently created trusts and in such a manner that holding of land by each of the trust came down within permissible ceiling limit. The learned Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that the said arrangements were made after 1.4.1976, more particularly in or after 1985 when the orders by the Mamlatdar and the Dy. Collector were already passed and that therefore, the said subsequent transactions and arrangements cannot be and should not be taken into account. 9. In this context, it would be relevant to take into account the observations/findings recorded by learned Tribunal in paragraph No. 6 of its impugned order dated 10.10.1994, which reads thus:- "6. Learned Special Govt. Pleader Shri B.J. Patel for the opponent State in all the matters narrated at length the background of the case, how the decision has come to be passed by the learned Member of this Tribunal earlier vis-a-vis the provisions of the Amended Ceiling Act, which has taken place on 1.4.76. He mentioned that Shri Hadala Bhai Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust had not filled up the particulars in form No. 2, as required under the Amended Act, which came into force from 1.4.76 and hence notice under section 16 had been issued to it (page 9 of the record). Then the Secretary of the said Trust had given an undertaking on 15.10.76 to fill up the Form No. 2 showing the agricultural land holding of the Trust (page 11). Then the Secretary of the said Trust had given an undertaking on 15.10.76 to fill up the Form No. 2 showing the agricultural land holding of the Trust (page 11). Then Shri Hadala Bhai Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust through its President Premjibhai Gatorbhai had applied to the Deputy Collector, Limbdi, on 24.6.76 for exemption under section 3 of the Amended Act, wherein it was clearly mentioned that on 1.4.76 the total holding of the land was A.155-30 comprised of some 32 fields. This Trust was earlier registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Rajkot, on 16.2.62, as per page 17, and thereafter the Deputy Charity Commissioner had registered it as a Public Trust on 5.8.64, as per page 17 and thereafter the Deputy Charity Commissioner had registered it as a Public Trust on 5.8.64 (Regn. No. F/23/ Surendranagar). As the Form No. 2 was not filled up by this Trust, the Mamlatdar had even issued notice under section 16 asking it to fill up the particulars of its agricultural land holding by notice dated 15.10.76. Thereafter the affidavit was made by the Secretary of the Hadala Bhai Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust, and as per V.F.8-A Khata No. 423 the Trust was holding A.155-30 as certified by the Talati and the V.F.6 entry of 27.10.62 confirms that position, as certified by the Talati on 19.10.76 (page 33-35) and as further supported by the Pahani Patraks of different survey numbers showing that the land was held by Hadala Bhai Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust. The application under section 3 for exemption made by the said Trust had been rejected by the Government under its order dated 19.1.84, bearing No. 2482-393-733-CHH and it was conveyed by the Deputy Collector to dispose of the case of this Body under section 21 of the Act (page 169). With this documentary evidence on record, learned Special Govt. Pleader Shri B.J. Patel submitted that as on the date of coming into force of the Amended Act on 1.4.76, there was only one Trust, which was holding the entire land of A.155-30, and the six different came into being only subsequently, in the year 1989 and that six Trusts were not in existence on 1.4.76. Pleader Shri B.J. Patel submitted that as on the date of coming into force of the Amended Act on 1.4.76, there was only one Trust, which was holding the entire land of A.155-30, and the six different came into being only subsequently, in the year 1989 and that six Trusts were not in existence on 1.4.76. What is required to be seen for the implementation and operation of the provisions of the Ceiling Act is the reference date 1.4.76 for the purpose of determination of the surplus land held by a holder. Excepting this one Trust, no other trust was registered under the B.P.T. Act by the Charity Commissioner as on 1.4.76 and it was only subsequent to 1.4.76 that the six different trusts were brought into existence and the property held by the one Trust, i.e. Shri Hadala Bhai Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust, had come to be partitioned or divided amongst them. Hence, any such change in the holding after the reference date 1.4.76 is not only unlawful but is not relevant for the purpose of determination of the issue of the surplus holding. Shri B.J. Patel mentioned that there is nothing in the earlier order of the learned Member of this Tribunal dated 20.2.90 so as to derive a meaning that any Trust not in existence as on 1.4.76 should also be considered entitled to get one Ceiling Unit and only thereafter the surplus in the holding should be worked out. The learned Member has observed in para 5 of his judgment that all these six Trusts were separately registered by the Deputy Charity Commissioner only on 18.3.89. Naturally, therefore, Shri B.J. Patel submitted, there was no question of any of these Trusts lately brought into existence or given birth to be considered entitled to get one Unit or retain any land. The entire holding was of only one Trust, i.e. Shri Hadala Bhal Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust, as on 1.4.76. The holding of the Trust as on 1.4.76 was A.155-30 and the Mamlatdar's order treating the holding as A.101-20 was not in accordance with law and, therefore, even while the Mamlatdar had declared A.54-20 surplus, the Deputy Collector had rightly decided the appeal of the State Government and allowed and held that the surplus holding was A.101-30. The holding of the Trust as on 1.4.76 was A.155-30 and the Mamlatdar's order treating the holding as A.101-20 was not in accordance with law and, therefore, even while the Mamlatdar had declared A.54-20 surplus, the Deputy Collector had rightly decided the appeal of the State Government and allowed and held that the surplus holding was A.101-30. Shri B.J. Patel submitted that the Deputy Collector's order is legal and proper and these revision applications should be dismissed as not being tenable in law. He reiterated with all emphasis that the Deputy Collector is duty-bound to obey the provisions of the enactment, which has given reference date of 1.4.76 for the purpose of determination of the holding of the land and decide the quantum of surplus land with the Body as on 1.4.76 only. According to him, subsequent registration of different trusts in 1989 or subsequent partition or division of the lands amongst those trusts is totally unlawful and smacks of being made with ulterior motive or defeating or circumventing the provisions of law. He was emphatic in his submission that there was no finality of decision. In the earlier order of the learned Member of this Tribunal dated 20.2.90, the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar and it did not give finality to any of the views expressed in the said judgment for the authorities concerned while conducting the matter again as the case is required to be decided don issues according to law, i.e. in accordance with the provisions of the enactment. Shri B.J. Patel submitted that the different citations made by learned advocate for the applicants were not applicable or relevant to the issues and facts in the present case. He submitted that the order of the learned Member dated 20.2.90 was only of interlocutory nature and the clear intention behind the remand was to find out whether the trusts were in existence on 1.4.76 and whether any of them held land in excess of the ceiling area on that date and the direction was only to give one unit to that body or trust which was in existence on 1.4.76. According to him, the remand proceedings are continuing proceedings and it cannot be said that the Mamlatdar/Deputy Collector had disobeyed the instructions or orders or directions of the learned Member of the Tribunal in any sense of the terms. According to him, the remand proceedings are continuing proceedings and it cannot be said that the Mamlatdar/Deputy Collector had disobeyed the instructions or orders or directions of the learned Member of the Tribunal in any sense of the terms. There was no disobedience as such but there was correct implementation or application of the provisions of the Act. He prayed that the revision applications may be dismissed." 10. From the said findings, it comes out that after the Ceiling Act came in force from 1.4.1976, the petitioner did not file any declaration/form declaring the holding of the land and therefore, notice under Section 16 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner trust filed Form No. 2. 10.1 According to the declaration made by the trust in the form filled in compliance of the provisions under the Ceiling Act, it held, as on 1.4.1976, 155 acres and 30 gunthas of land which comprised about 31 fields. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to show anything from record any material which would demonstrate that the said observations and findings by learned Tribunal is incorrect or contrary to record. It is not even the case made out in the petition that in the declaration form filed by the petitioner trust (in compliance of the provisions under Ceiling Act), it had not declared that before 1.4.1976 it held 155 acres and 30 gunthas of land comprised about 31 fields. 12. From the record by learned Tribunal, it also comes out that the trust was originally registered with Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Rajkot on 16.2.1992 and thereafter, it was registered as public trust on 5.8.1994. On this count, it is also relevant to note that any material which would demonstrate that the said findings by the learned Tribunal are incorrect or contrary to record is not shown during hearing of present petition. 13. Learned Tribunal has also recorded that village form No. 8-A (Khata No. 423) reflects entry that the trust held 155 acres and 30 gunthas of land and entry to that effect is mutated on 27.10.1962 in village form No. 6. On this count, it is also relevant to note that any material which would demonstrate that the said findings by the learned Tribunal are incorrect are contrary to record is not shown during hearing of present petition. 14. On this count, it is also relevant to note that any material which would demonstrate that the said findings by the learned Tribunal are incorrect are contrary to record is not shown during hearing of present petition. 14. According to the observations and findings by learned Tribunal in the impugned order, even Panipatrak also reflected similar details. 15. In this background, it is relevant to note that the Mamlatdar had instituted proceedings somewhere in 1976-77 on the ground that the petitioner held land in excess than permissible ceiling. The said proceedings were registered as Ceiling Case No. 4/76-77. Against the order passed by Mamlatdar in 1985, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Dy. Collector who rejected the appeal vide order dated 30.11.1985 against which the petitioner filed revision application before the learned Tribunal which was registered as revision application No. 157 of 1986. It is pertinent to note that it was during pendency of the said revision application that the petitioner had approached Charity Commissioner with application under Section 22-A of Bombay Public Trust Act which was registered as application No. 172 of 1988. The Commissioner decided the said application vide his order dated 22.6.1989. The said order was placed before the learned Tribunal and having regard to the decision dated 23.6.1989 by Charity Commissioner, the learned Tribunal passed order dated 20.2.1990 whereby the proceedings came to be remanded to the Mamlatdar. In the decision dated 20.2.1990, the learned Tribunal took into consideration that the Charity Commissioner had registered six trusts viz. Hadala Pareva Chhatri Dharmada Trust, Hadala Sadavrat Sarvajanik trust, Pir Balamsha Hadala trust, Hadala Bhal Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal, Daliya Sadvrat Khatu trust and Sipayiyoni Mehjad Fund Khatu. The learned Tribunal also took note of the holding of land by each of said six trusts on the basis of Charity Commissioner's order. 16. At this stage, it would not be out of place to take into account the observations by the learned Tribunal in the impugned decision dated 10.10.1994 wherein the learned Tribunal dealt with the petitioner's contention based on observations by learned Tribunal in the order dated 20.2.1990. On this count, learned Tribunal has observed that:- "8. 16. At this stage, it would not be out of place to take into account the observations by the learned Tribunal in the impugned decision dated 10.10.1994 wherein the learned Tribunal dealt with the petitioner's contention based on observations by learned Tribunal in the order dated 20.2.1990. On this count, learned Tribunal has observed that:- "8. As pointed out earlier, the judgment of the learned Member of this Tribunal dated 20.2.90 has no where laid down, as a specific ruling, that position regarding the holding of the land by a person as on 1.4.76 is not to be kept in view. What he has mentioned in the judgment is that several trusts have come into being in the year 1989, i.e. much after the specified date 1.4.76 and if at any subsequent stage any of the trusts have come to hold land in excess of the prescribed ceiling, he has asked the Mamlatdar to examine that position and decide it according to law. While determining the matter, he has not forbidden the Mamlatdar to take any view different from the provisions of the Act, viz. to discard or connive at the provisions applicable to a person or a trust with regard to his/its holding of lands with reference date of 1.4.76. The whole structure that learned advocate Shri A.J. Patel wanted to build was on the premises that the learned Member had given specific directions and that this Bench of the Tribunal cannot now re-examine it and/or the lower authorities were bound to comply with the same. In this regard, we with to amplify that the judgment of the learned Member dated 20.2.90 nowhere forbids the examination of the case of the original trust, Shri Hadala Bhal Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust, with regard to its holding, as to the quantum of land it was holding and whether it was in excess of the prescribed ceiling area. The edifice tried to be built by learned advocate Shri A.J. Patel, therefore, falls. There is, therefore, no question of any involvement of the legal maxim of res-judicata nor finality or conclusiveness of the decision once given. The remand order of the learned Member of this Tribunal only mentions that if any of the Trusts, named in the judgment, held land in excess of the prescribed ceiling area, he should hold inquiry afresh. There is, therefore, no question of any involvement of the legal maxim of res-judicata nor finality or conclusiveness of the decision once given. The remand order of the learned Member of this Tribunal only mentions that if any of the Trusts, named in the judgment, held land in excess of the prescribed ceiling area, he should hold inquiry afresh. The Mamlatdar was bound, in law and under this Act, to see the position about the holding as on 1.4.76 and no other date, so far as the case of Shri Hadala Bhal Sarvajanik Rahat Mandal Trust was concerned. The Mamlatdar, in the remand proceeding, was to find out whether there was surplus land in the holding of any of the Trusts, named in the judgment, which came into being in 1989 on their registration, because it is likely that such trusts might have acquired or are holding other lands also, which might exceed the permitted ceiling area. The Mamlatdar was, therefore, legitimate to act in that direction." 17. It is appropriate at this stage to mention that above discussed factual backdrop has brought out that the petitioner made certain changes in its constitution after 1.4.1976 and created more than one entity (i.e. created more than one trusts) as against the single entity which existed before 1.4.1976 (viz. the petitioner trust) which held entire chunk of land admeasuring 155 acres and 30 gunthas. 18. The learned Tribunal has specifically observed and held that the subsequent alterations and arrangement and transfer effected by the petitioner are not bona-fide, inasmuch as the petitioner effected the said arrangement and transferred land to subsequently created trusts with object of frustrating the provisions under the Ceiling Act. However, Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner, so as to counter the said observation and conclusion relied on above mentioned documents, i.e. the documents which purport to be certificates issued by Mamlatdar under Section 15 of the Act of 1951. 19. On this count, it is necessary to mention that the said documents are not found on record of the petition. On reading the impugned order by learned Tribunal or by Dy. Collector or even by Mamlatdar, it does not come out that the reference of the said document was made by the petitioner before the said authorities or before the learned Tribunal. However, Mr. On reading the impugned order by learned Tribunal or by Dy. Collector or even by Mamlatdar, it does not come out that the reference of the said document was made by the petitioner before the said authorities or before the learned Tribunal. However, Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner, asserted that the said documents were available on record before the Dy. Collected and learned Tribunal, however, the learned Tribunal and the Dy. Collector failed to take into account the said document. According to Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner, if the said document had been taken into consideration, then, the said document would have demonstrated and clarified that four trusts viz. Pir Balamsha Hadala trust, Hadala Pareva Chhatri Dharmada Trust, Hadala Sadavrat Sarvajanik trust and Daliya Sadvrat Khatu trust were created before 1956 and existed even in 1955 and the said trusts held certain parcels of land which are in question in present proceedings. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the said document demonstrates that the findings by learned Tribunal that different trusts came into existence for the first time after 1976 is contrary to said documents, though the fact that holding of the land by the trust prior to 1.4.1976 alone should be taken into account cannot be disputed. 20. Mr. Mehta, learned AGP, submitted that the said document have not been referred to in any of the orders and they do not form part of the petition and therefore, it is not possible for the respondent to deal with the said issue and that even the petitioner had not relied on and referred to said documents even before learned Tribunal. 21. Having regard to the said document, it appears that it would be appropriate that the veracity of the said document and its effect deserves to be considered by the learned Tribunal. It is also appropriate that the learned Tribunal should look at the record and ascertain whether documents were available on Tribunal's record and formed part of record of the authorities - as claimed by the petitioner - or not. For the said purpose, it would be necessary to remand the proceedings to the learned Tribunal. 22. It is also appropriate that the learned Tribunal should look at the record and ascertain whether documents were available on Tribunal's record and formed part of record of the authorities - as claimed by the petitioner - or not. For the said purpose, it would be necessary to remand the proceedings to the learned Tribunal. 22. Therefore, following order is passed:- "(a) With aforesaid limited reason and for said limited purpose and on said limited ground, the order dated 10.10.1994 passed by learned Tribunal is set aside and the proceedings are remanded to learned Tribunal to decide as to whether said documents (on which learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance during hearing of present petition) are available on record of revision application Nos. 588 of 1992 to 591 of 1992 or not, and whether the said documents formed part of record of the authorities and whether petitioner had relied on - referred to the said documents or not, and if the said documents are available on record of the said revision application, then, after taking into account the details mentioned therein and after considering and deciding the effect thereof, the learned Tribunal will pass fresh order. (b) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the said documents and it will be for the learned Tribunal to consider the said documents independently and to also examine its veracity as well as factual aspect that the said documents form part of record of revision application and only if it is established that the said documents form part of the record of revision application, then, its effect on the central issue will be taken into consideration by learned Tribunal. If it is found that said documents were not part of the record, then, learned Tribunal will pass appropriate order as considered necessary in the facts of the case." 23. With aforesaid clarifications and direction, proceedings are remanded to learned Tribunal for appropriate order. Present petition partly allowed and accordingly stands disposed of. Petition Partly Allowed.