JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for petitioner and Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for respondent No. 1.1 to 1.3 and Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "8(A) This Hon'ble Court may appropriate writ, order or direction, quash and set aside the order Annexures 'B, C and D." 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order passed in July, 1987 by Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No. 190 of 1975 as well as the order dated 8-9/10/1999 passed by Deputy Secretary in SSRD Case No. 28 of 1995 and order/communication dated 21.1.2000 addressed by the Office of the Deputy Secretary to the Petitioner. 4. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from rival submissions by learned advocates and from material available on record, including impugned order, that the dispute between the parties is related to land bearing Survey No. 616 admeasuring 3 Acres 8 Gunthas situate at Village Sarol, Dist. Anand (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). 5. According to the petitioner's claim, he was owner of and in possession of the said suit land. 5.1 According to the petitioner, one Mr. Madhabhai Mansang, was tenant in respect of the said land. 5.2 However, after the Tiller's day, the said tenant Madhabhai Mansang, according to petitioner's allegation, declared his unwillingness to purchase the land. 5.3 In view of the said statement and declaration by the tenant, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed order dated 22.3.1968 recording the fact that the tenant declared his unwillingness to purchase the said land. He, therefore, directed that the land and its possession should be handed over to its original owner and the tenant should be evacuated. 5.4 According to the petitioner's case, subsequently one Mr. Fatehsing Kakubava submitted an application under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act and claimed that on the relevant date i.e. on Tiller's day, he was tenant and that, therefore, he should be declared protected tenant. 5.5 The petitioner alleged that actually Mr. Fatehsing Kakubava was a mortgagee of the land and the said fact was established before the authority and that, therefore, the Mamlatdar & ALT rejected the application filed by the said Mr. Fatehsing and closed the proceedings on the ground that mortgagee cannot be tenant. 5.5 The petitioner alleged that actually Mr. Fatehsing Kakubava was a mortgagee of the land and the said fact was established before the authority and that, therefore, the Mamlatdar & ALT rejected the application filed by the said Mr. Fatehsing and closed the proceedings on the ground that mortgagee cannot be tenant. 5.6 It appears that somewhere in February-March, 1994, the respondent No. 1 had submitted an application seeking permission to purchase the land but the said application was dismissed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. 5.7 According to the petitioner, in view of the order dated 22.3.1968, he is in possession of the land in question, however, disregarding the said fact, the Talati issued a Notice in July, 1987 for taking over of the possession of the land in question allegedly on strength of an order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT. 5.8 Feeling aggrieved by the said Notice, the Petitioner preferred Revision Application before the Secretary, which was dismissed. 5.9 When the petitioner filed Review Application before the Secretary, the said Review Application also came to be rejected. 5.10 In this background, the petitioner filed present petition with request to set aside the above mentioned orders dated July 1987, 8-9/10/1999 and order/communication dated 21.1.2000. 6. The petition is opposed by the Respondent State. The respondent State contends that there is no error in the order dated 8-9/10/1999 passed by the Secretary whereby the Secretary (Appeals) Confirmed the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT. 6.1 The respondent State has filed affidavit made by in-charge Mamlatdar & ALT under which various orders and copies of village Form No. 6 and other revenue records are placed on record to support the submission that the impugned decision by the Secretary (Appeals) does not suffer form any infirmity. 6.2 The respondent No. 1 has also filed affidavit contending that actually he is tenant of the land in question and the order dated 22.3.1968 was passed without granting opportunity of hearing. 7. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner heavily relied on the order dated 22.3.1968 and submitted that the said decision has attained finality because the said order dated 22.3.1968 has never been challenged by anyone including the respondent State and/or the private Respondent No. 1. He further submitted that since the said order dated 22.3.1968 has attained finality the authority should not have instituted subsequent proceedings in respect of the same land. He further submitted that since the said order dated 22.3.1968 has attained finality the authority should not have instituted subsequent proceedings in respect of the same land. He also submitted that in view of the fact that initiation of subsequent proceedings despite existence of order dated 22.3.1968, is unauthorised and unjustified, even otherwise the said orders deserves to be set aside because said order came to be passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Mr. Patel, learned AGP submitted that there is no record or order dated 22.3.1968 inasmuch as the revenue record does not contain/reflect any entry with reference to order dated 22.3.1968. He also submitted that the land was granted/allotted to the petitioner on Gharkhed basis and that the petitioner committed breach of condition of grant of allotment of land and that, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the concerned authority because orders have been passed in light of the fact that the petitioner committed breach of conditions of grant/allotment of land. 9. I have considered rival submissions by learned advocates for petitioner and private respondents as well learned AGP and I have also considered the material available on record including impugned orders. 10. According to chronology of events and orders which are placed on record by the respondent State under the affidavit dated 20.3.2017, made by in-charge Mamlatdar & ALT, Borsad, it appears that even according to the Respondent State during the proceedings of inquiry under Section 32-G (Tenancy Case No. 467), Mr. Madhabhai Mansang had declared his unwillingness to purchase the land in question. Learned AGP referred to the Entry No. 2104, which is mutated in Revenue Record (village Form No. 6) on 22.12.1965 whereby the declaration by Madhabhai Mansang is recorded. 10.1 It also appears that subsequently the Mamlatdar & ALT initiated proceedings under Section 32P. The said proceedings were registered as Tenancy Case No. 98 of 1968. 10.2 According to the petitioner, it was in the said proceedings that the order dated 22.3.1968 came to be passed. 10.3 However, according to the details mentioned by the respondent State, any Entry with reference to the order said to have been passed on 22.3.1968 in Tenancy Case No. 98 of 1968 is not available in revenue record. 10.2 According to the petitioner, it was in the said proceedings that the order dated 22.3.1968 came to be passed. 10.3 However, according to the details mentioned by the respondent State, any Entry with reference to the order said to have been passed on 22.3.1968 in Tenancy Case No. 98 of 1968 is not available in revenue record. 10.4 Learned AGP also submitted that the record of the concerned authority contains copy of order made in Tenancy Case No. 98 of 1968, however, the said order, which is available on record is not complete order (as part of the order is torn-off). 10.5 The part of the order which is available on record gives out that the tenant at the relevant time said Mr. Madhabhai had declared that he did not want to purchase the land. 10.6 According to learned AGP, somewhere in 1975, an Application was filed by one Mr. Fatehsing Kakubava seeking permission to purchase the land. According to learned AGP, the said Application was disposed of vide order dated 16.4.1976 and the Tenancy Case No. 190 of 1975 was closed in view of the fact that the said applicant was found to be mortgagee. 11. In light of details which have emerged from the chronology of events and the copies of the orders placed on record by the learned AGP, it has emerged that while passing the subsequent orders, the concerned authorities have failed to take into account order dated 22.3.1968 and he also failed to take into account the fact that the land in question was mortgaged. 11.1 Besides this the contention that the factum of mortgage of land (i.e. the fact that the petitioner had mortgaged the land) establish breach of condition of grant on Gharkhed basis, is also not taken into consideration by the authority while passing the impugned orders. 12. Learned AGP could not refute the fact that the said details have not been taken into account by the concerned authorities while passing the orders which have been impugned by the petitioner. 13. Besides this, another relevant aspect which has emerged from the submission by the learned advocate is that when the Talati issued Notice in July, 1995 it was held that the said proceedings were instituted in light of the order dated 12.3.1986. 13. Besides this, another relevant aspect which has emerged from the submission by the learned advocate is that when the Talati issued Notice in July, 1995 it was held that the said proceedings were instituted in light of the order dated 12.3.1986. The petitioner claims that the said order has never been served upon the petitioner and that before the said order came to be passed any opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner. Similar grievance is made out by the respondent No. 1 as well. 14. There is no material on record of this petition which could establish that the said order was duly served on and received by the petitioner. 15. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to enter into the issue as to whether the findings, observations and conclusion recorded by the Authorities, more particularly by the Secretary (Appeals) in his order dated 8.9.1999 are factually correct and justified or not. 15.1 It has emerged that the present petition can be disposed of on the limited ground that the above mentioned orders came to be passed without granting opportunity of hearing and the respondent authorities have failed to establish that the said order dated 12.3.1986 was duly served to the petitioner. 15.2 On the said limited ground, the petition deserves to be disposed of and matter deserves to be remanded to the Mamlatdar & ALT, who passed the order in July, 1987 in Tenancy Case No. 190 of 1975. 16. Therefore, following order is passed: (a). The impugned orders dated July, 1987, 8-9/10/1999 and order/communication dated 21.1.2000 at Annexures B, C and D are set aside and the proceedings are remanded to Mamlatdar & ALT, who will pass fresh reasoned and speaking order after granting opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned and interested in the proceedings and after taking into account the material, which may be placed on record by the concerned/interested parties, more particularly the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The competent authority will pass fresh order in accordance with law, without being influenced by order passed in July, 1987 in Tenancy Case No. 190 of 1975. Consequently the petition stands disposed off. Orders accordingly. Disposed off