JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. According to the cause list, the respondent No. 3 is served, however, he has not entered appearance. At the time of hearing, no one has remained present for respondent No. 3. 2. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that this petition is taken out at interlocutory stage of the proceedings pending before the Secretary (Appeals) by way of Revision Application No. 29 of 2013, inasmuch as in present petition, the petitioner has challenged interim order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) whereby the said authority disallowed the application for interim relief. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order rejecting the application for interim relief, the revisionist before the Secretary (Appeals) filed present petition and prayed for below quoted relief:- "11(A) Your Lordships be graciously pleased to admit and allow this petition and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order Annex. D. dtd. 13/1/2015, passed in Revision application No. 48/2014 by the Revenue Secretary (Appeals) at Ahmedabad and an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued to the respondent in that behalf in the interest of justice. (B) Consequently it be held that the impugned order dated 13/1/2015 as well as the order dated 26/5/2014 passed by the Ld. Collector are also without jurisdiction and does not even stand even for a moment and consequently, the Revision application No. 48/2014 be ordered to be taken for final hearing immediately on the date fixed by the Hon'ble Court for its disposal in the interest of justice. (C) Any other order or orders as deemed just be also passed. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be graciously pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the impugned orders dated 13/1/15, alongwith order dated 26/5/2014 passed by the Ld. Collector so as to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings pending this petition and an appropriate writ, direction or order be direction to be issued to the respondents in this behalf. The interest of justice and an appropriate writ, direction or order be directed to be issued to the respondents in that behalf." 3. Collector so as to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings pending this petition and an appropriate writ, direction or order be direction to be issued to the respondents in this behalf. The interest of justice and an appropriate writ, direction or order be directed to be issued to the respondents in that behalf." 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP that according to the petitioner, he purchased certain parcel of land from respondent No. 3 vide sale deed dated 24.5.2012. According to the petitioner, the said sale deed is registered and thereafter, revenue entry is mutated in favour of the petitioner. The entry is mutated at serial No. 1695 and it was certified on 28.6.2012. 3.1 It appears that subsequently, the petitioner received notice dated 12.9.2013 from the Collector who exercised suo motu power and called upon the petitioner to explain and show cause as to why the said entry No. 1695 should not be cancelled. The transaction entered into by virtue of the sale deed dated 24.5.2012 was questioned by the authority on various grounds including breach of provisions under the Fragmentation Act and also on the ground that the entry was mutated without notice under Section 135(D). It appears that the petitioner filed reply in response to the notice and ultimately, the Collector passed order dated 26.5.2014 and directed that the entry mutated in favour of the petitioner should be cancelled. 3.2 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 26.5.2014, the petitioner filed revision application before the present respondent No. 5 - Secretary (Appeals). The petitioner raised several contentions against the order passed by the Collector and the petitioner also relied on various decisions by this Court in support of the contention that the order dated 26.5.2014 passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. 3.3 The said revision application was registered as Revision Application No. 48 of 2014. 3.4 Along with the revision application, the petitioner also filed application seeking interim relief. The said application was separately heard by the Secretary (Appeals). After considering the application and upon hearing the parties, the Secretary (Appeals) passed order dated 13.1.2015 whereby the said authority rejected the petitioner's request for interim relief and directed that the revision application will be heard on merits as per its seniority. The said application was separately heard by the Secretary (Appeals). After considering the application and upon hearing the parties, the Secretary (Appeals) passed order dated 13.1.2015 whereby the said authority rejected the petitioner's request for interim relief and directed that the revision application will be heard on merits as per its seniority. 3.5 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 13.1.2015 rejecting the request for interim relief, the petitioner has filed present petition. 4. The petition seems to have been filed on or around 23.1.2015 and it was circulated/placed for first hearing before the Court on 13.2.2015. After hearing the petitioner, the Court passed below quoted order on 13.2.2015 :- "Notice for final disposal returnable on 05/03/2015. Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. for respondent No. 3. Mr. P.M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner shall serve copy of the paper book to learned Assistant Government Pleader today." 4.1 It emerges from the said order that the Court did not grant any ad-interim relief/interim relief in favour of the petitioner and instead, the Court preferred to issue notice for final disposal of the petition. 4.2 Since then, the respondent No. 3 does not seem to have entered appearance. 4.3 On 8.6.2015, the Court passed below quoted order:- "1. The order dated 13.02.2015 passed by this Court is as follows: Notice for final disposal returnable on 05/03/2015. Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. for respondent No. 3. Mr. P.M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner shall serve copy of the paper book to learned Assistant Government Pleader today. 2. Though the aforesaid order is passed by this Court, it appears that no reply has been filed by the Collector, Vadodara (as the then was). Therefore, the reply to the averments made in the petition shall be filed by the next date of hearing i.e. on 29.06.2015. It goes without saying that he is no longer the Collector of the said District, however, he shall be contacted and reply be filed as there are serious allegations against him in the petition. 3. Reply be filed by all the contesting parties on or before 19.06.2015. The pleadings be completed on 26.06.2015. It goes without saying that he is no longer the Collector of the said District, however, he shall be contacted and reply be filed as there are serious allegations against him in the petition. 3. Reply be filed by all the contesting parties on or before 19.06.2015. The pleadings be completed on 26.06.2015. S.O. to 29.06.2015." 4.4 By the said order dated 8.6.2015, the proceedings were adjourned to 29.6.2015. On 29.6.2015, the Court passed below quoted order:- "Rule returnable on 21.08.2015. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. Parties to complete the pleadings on or before the next date of hearing." 4.5 At this stage, it is pertinent to note that either at the time when the Court passed order on 8.6.2015 or at the time when the Court passed order on 29.6.2015, any order granting ad-interim relief or interim relief is not passed by the Court in present petition. Though the petition came to be admitted after about 4 months and after few adjournments, even at the last stage of admission of the petition, the Court did not grant any interim relief. 4.6 The said fact translates into the fact that from the stage/date when the petitioner filed Revision Application until now i.e. for almost 3 years, interim relief is not granted. 4.7 On 16.6.2016, the Court passed below quoted order:- "Put up on 17.06.2016." 5. From the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner, it has emerged that in the interregnum, i.e. from the date when the respondent No. 5 passed impugned order and from the date on which this Court passed first order i.e. 13.2.2015, until now, certain developments have taken place. 5.1 According to the petitioner's submission, one of the developments which has taken place is that the respondent No. 3 has, as alleged by the petitioner, availed loan against the land in question. 5.2 It appears that after the said developments took place, the petitioner filed Civil Application No. 1791 of 2016. In the said Civil Application, the petitioner prayed for below quoted relief:- "12(A) Your Lordships be graciously pleased to allow this application and be further pleased to allow the applicant to join proposed respondent No. 6 Gujarat Gramin Bank as party respondent No. 6 in this petition in the interest of justice. In the said Civil Application, the petitioner prayed for below quoted relief:- "12(A) Your Lordships be graciously pleased to allow this application and be further pleased to allow the applicant to join proposed respondent No. 6 Gujarat Gramin Bank as party respondent No. 6 in this petition in the interest of justice. (B) Consequently, against the proposed respondent No. 6, appropriate direction be given to it in order to see that no loan amount is given pending the petition to the vendor of the lands in question-resp. No. 3 herein and thereby to see that he may not over reach the process of this Hon'ble Court by deliberately avoiding his appearance in this petition. (C) Consequently, the revenue authorities i.e. Resp. Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 be also directed to maintain the status quo qua the entry No. 1695 made on the basis of registered sale deed and the resp. No. 5 be directed to immediately set down the hearing of the Revision application No. 48/2014 pending before it and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 5.3 It is pertinent to note that even in the said Civil Application also, the Court did not grant any interim relief and instead, below quoted order came to be passed on 7.6.2016:- "The present application be heard along with the main petition. The main petition with the application be listed on 9.6.2016." 5.4 Thereafter, any steps for seeking any other direction by way of interim relief do not appear to have been taken by the petitioner. 5.5 Of course, somewhere in April 2017, the petitioner filed Civil Application No. 5072 of 2017 for early hearing of the petition wherein the Court passed below quoted order on 13.4.2017:- "Heard Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for Applicant and Mr. Patel, learned AGP. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that he does not press the application. Therefore, the application is disposed of as withdrawn." 6. Now, the petition is listed in cause list for final hearing. 7. learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the Secretary (Appeals) has committed serious error in rejecting the revisionist's application for interim relief. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that he does not press the application. Therefore, the application is disposed of as withdrawn." 6. Now, the petition is listed in cause list for final hearing. 7. learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the Secretary (Appeals) has committed serious error in rejecting the revisionist's application for interim relief. He would submit that the petitioner had made out strong case for interim relief, inasmuch as it was demonstrated that the impugned order passed by the Collector is contrary to the decisions of the High Court and also contrary to the relevant provisions under the Tenancy Act, Fragmentation Act as well as Land Revenue Code. He would also submit that the Secretary (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the order passed by the Collector is without authority of law and contrary to legal position explained by the decisions of High Court. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the Secretary (Appeals) should have granted interim relief prayed for by the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the said order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) deserves to be set aside. 7.1 Learned AGP would submit that in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) does not suffer from any error and does not warrant any interference. Without prejudice to the said contention, learned AGP would further submit that the petition against the interim order passed at interlocutory stage of revision application which is pending before the Secretary (Appeals) is not maintainable or does not deserve to be entertained. Learned AGP would also submit that even if the Court finds that the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) is erroneous, then, the case may be remanded to the authority for fresh consideration of the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner. 8. I have considered the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent - State and I have also considered impugned order and other material available on record. 9. It has emerged from above mentioned details and chronology of events that the Collector passed order on 26.5.2014. 9.1 Almost 3 years have passed since the date on which the Collector passed the order and any interim relief against the said order is not granted by the revisional authority or by this Court. 9. It has emerged from above mentioned details and chronology of events that the Collector passed order on 26.5.2014. 9.1 Almost 3 years have passed since the date on which the Collector passed the order and any interim relief against the said order is not granted by the revisional authority or by this Court. 9.2 It is pertinent to note that according to the statement by learned advocate for the petitioner, the revision application is still pending before the revisional authority. 9.3 Though any interim order staying the proceedings before the Secretary (Appeals) is not passed, somehow, the revision application seems to have remained pending for last two years. 10. In this background, it is necessary to take into account the fact that in present petition, the petitioner, by way of interim relief prayed, that operation of order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) on 13.1.2015 may be stayed. 10.1 As mentioned earlier, the interim relief prayed for by the petitioner is not granted during last 2 years, i.e. during pendency of the petition. 10.2 Besides this, even if the relief which the petitioner prayed for with reference to Secretary's order dated 13.1.2015 had been granted, that would not amount to granting interim relief which the petitioner prayed for before the Secretary (Appeals). 10.3 On the other hand, the order passed by the Collector was already three years' old and revision application was pending before the revisional authority and the Court did not grant any interim relief at the relevant time against the order passed by the Collector, probably in view of the fact that the said order was under substantial challenge before the revisional authority. 11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that during entire interregnum, any order granting interim relief is not passed in present proceedings. 12. When the impugned order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) is examined in this background, then, the only question which arises is as to whether the Secretary (Appeals) committed any error in rejecting the application for interim relief. 12.1 In the event, the said order is found erroneous, then, the proceedings will have to be remanded to the Secretary (Appeals) for reconsideration of petitioner's application for interim relief. 12.2 In this context, it is also relevant to note that even according to the petitioner, certain subsequent developments have taken place. 12.1 In the event, the said order is found erroneous, then, the proceedings will have to be remanded to the Secretary (Appeals) for reconsideration of petitioner's application for interim relief. 12.2 In this context, it is also relevant to note that even according to the petitioner, certain subsequent developments have taken place. 12.3 On that count, it is pertinent to note that the scope of present petition is limited to the extent of challenge against the order refusing interim relief. 13. From the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner, it has emerged that any independent substantive proceedings against the subsequent developments have not been taken out by the petitioner. 14. On the other hand, on examining the impugned order dated 13.1.2015 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) with reference to interim relief application filed by the petitioner, it comes out that the authority has not dealt with the contentions raised by the revisionist i.e. present petitioner. 14.1 Not only this, the authority also does not appear to have even recorded/mentioned the contentions raised by the revisionist in the revision application and/or in support of interim relief application. 14.2 The impugned order recites two reasons viz. that the petitioner has not made out prima facie case for interim relief and any evidence to establish that the revisionist - present petitioner was agriculturist at the time when he purchased the land are not available on record. However, neither the contentions raised by the petitioner against the order dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Collector are recorded by the authority nor the said contentions have been addressed and dealt with by the authority. 14.3 Under the circumstances, the petitioner's contention that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order cannot be ignored or brushed aside. 14.4 The petitioner has succeeded in demonstrating and establishing that the impugned order is unreasoned and non-speaking order, inasmuch as any of the contentions raised by the petitioner are not dealt with and decided by the Secretary (Appeals) while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the order, undoubtedly, deserves to be set aside. 15. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that having regard to the factual background discussed above, the Court informed the petitioner that the authority may be directed to expedite the hearing of the main revision application with direction to decide impugned revision application itself within time limit which may be fixed by the Court. 15. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that having regard to the factual background discussed above, the Court informed the petitioner that the authority may be directed to expedite the hearing of the main revision application with direction to decide impugned revision application itself within time limit which may be fixed by the Court. However, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would like to and would want to pursue interim relief application and the petitioner - revisionist wants to invite fresh order in respect of interim relief application instead of proceeding with main revision application. 16. Since the petitioner, as submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner, is more interested in prosecuting the application for interim relief rather than proceeding with hearing of main revision application on merits and since the petitioner, even after long passage of time, still wants to seek interim relief and prosecute the application for interim relief, following order is passed:- (a) For the reasons mentioned above, impugned order dated 13.1.2015 does not deserve to be sustained and that therefore, the said order is set aside. (b) Since the said order is set aside, the respondent No. 5 will re-hear the revisionist's application for interim relief and pass appropriate order in respect of interim relief application, after granting opportunity of hearing to contesting parties and after considering and dealing with the contentions which may be raised by the parties and without being influenced by the impugned order. (c) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on merits of the case and that therefore, this order shall not be construed as expression of any view or opinion with regard to the case of the applicant in impugned revision application or even in respect of interim relief application and the authority will consider and decide the interim relief application independently on its own merits. With aforesaid directions and clarifications, present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Allowed