JUDGMENT & ORDER : P. P. Bhatt, J. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with following prayers: (a) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; (b) Your Lordship be pleased to direct that the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 20/03/2015 be stayed pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (c) Your Lordship be pleased to direct that the order passed by the learned G.R.T. in Review Application No. 53/2014 be stayed pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (d) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : 2.1 That, in respect of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 122 (Old Survey No. 143) situated at Village Ambaji, Taluka: Danta, District : Banaskantha admeasuring H. 0-50-59 sq. mtrs., the respondent No. 1 had filed an application bearing Case No. 1/2007 under Section 37 (2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code before the Mamlatdar, Danat, which came to be rejected by an order dated 15/03/2008. 2.2 That, being aggrieved with the said order, under Section 203 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the respondent No. 1 had preferred Appeal bearing No. 4/2008 before the Deputy Collector, Palanpur. The Deputy Collector, Palanpur has by and order dated 04/04/2009 rejected the same and confirmed the order dated 15/03/2007 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta. 2.3 That, the respondent No. 1 had challenged the said order dated 04/04/2009 before the Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur which was registered as Appeal No. 3/2010. The Collector, Banaskantha had by an order dated 17/05/2011 partly allowed the case of the respondent No. 1 by quashing and setting aside both the orders passed by the Mamlatdar dated 15/03/2007 and order dated 04/04/2009 passed by the Deputy Collector and directed to reconsider the case of the present respondent No. 1. 2.4 That, Pursuant to the directions given by the Collector, Banaskantha order dated 17/05/2011, the case of the respondent No. 1 was registered as JMN-37(2) Remand Case/2/2011 before the Mamlatdar, Danata, wherein the Mamlatdar, Danta has passed an order dated 22/08/2012 in favour of the respondent No.1. 2.4 That, Pursuant to the directions given by the Collector, Banaskantha order dated 17/05/2011, the case of the respondent No. 1 was registered as JMN-37(2) Remand Case/2/2011 before the Mamlatdar, Danata, wherein the Mamlatdar, Danta has passed an order dated 22/08/2012 in favour of the respondent No.1. Then, said order dated 22/08/2012 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta was reconsidered by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur and by an order dated 04/10/2012, bearing No. JMN-2/37(2)/vashi/1554, the Deputy Collector, Palanpur had approved the order dated 22/08/2012 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta. 2.5 That, the Mamlatdar, Danta had forwarded the said order with other necessary documents to the Collector Office, Palanpur. During inspection, Collector found that the said is inappropriate and hence, by exercising Suo Moto under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur had taken the matter as Suo Moto Revision bearing No.B/JMN-4/Suo Moto/Revision/7/2013 Ambaji and by an order dated 30/09/2013 quashed and set aside the order dated 22/0/2012 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta and order dated 04/10/2012 passed by the Deputy Collector, Palanpur. 2.6 That, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order dated 30/09/2013 passed by the Collector, Palanpur, the respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal No. AA/38/2013 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was rejected by an order dated 01/10/2014. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 had preferred an Review Application bearing CA/53/2014 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which was initially rejected, but thereafter vide an order dated 20/03/2015 the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has quashed and set aside the order dated 30/09/2013 passed by the Collector, Banaskantha at Palanpur and revive the order dated 22/08/2012 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta bearing No.JMN/37(2)/Remand Case No.2/2011. 2.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition challenging the dated 20/03/2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No.CS/53/2015. 3. Heard, Mr. J. K. Shah, learned AGP for the petitioner - State, Mr.shalin Meta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vimal Purohit, for respondent No. 1, 2.1 to 2.6 and 3.1 to 3.4. 4. Mr. J. K. Shah, learned AGP for the petitioner State submitted that the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 20/03/2015 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal reviewed its earlier order dated 01/10/2014 and thereby allowed the application filed by the respondent which was otherwise dismissed vide order dated 01/10/2014. 4. Mr. J. K. Shah, learned AGP for the petitioner State submitted that the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 20/03/2015 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal reviewed its earlier order dated 01/10/2014 and thereby allowed the application filed by the respondent which was otherwise dismissed vide order dated 01/10/2014. The said order dated 20/03/2015 passed by the learned Tribunal defiles all the well settled proposition of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions that review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. This Hon'ble Court, while issuing rule, vide order dated 30/06/2017 granted ad interim relief in terms of para 15(c), staying the operation and implementation of the order dated 20/03/2015 passed by the learned Tribunal. 4.1 Learned AGP further submitted that initially, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under the provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 37 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 122 (Old Survey No. 147/3) situated at Village: Ambaji, Taluka: Danta, District: Banaskantha admeasuring 5059 sq. Mtrs. In the first round of litigation, the Mamlatdar, vide an order dated 15/03/2008, rejected the said application filed by the respondent No. 1 which came to be challenged before the Deputy Collector, Palanpur under Section 203 of the Code and the same as registered as Appeal No. 4/2008. The said appeal also came to be rejected by the Deputy Collector, vide order dated 04/04/2009 and order dated 15/03/2008 passed by the Mamlatdar stood confirmed. Then the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Banaskantha which was registered as 3/2010. The Collector, Banaskantha while partly allowing the appeal of the respondent No. 1 set aside both the orders dated 04/04/2009 and 15/03/2008 passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar respectively. The Collector, Banaskantha vide the said order dated 17/05/2001 remitted the matter back to the Mamlatdar to consider the same afresh. Apropos the order dated 17/05/2011, the Mamlatdar after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 22/08/2012 and allowed the application of the respondent No.1 which was further confirmed by the Deputy Collector, in appeal vide order dated 04/10/2012. The Collector, while taking the said orders in Suo-motu Revision, reversed both the orders dated 22/08/2012 and 04/10/2012 passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar, respectively. The Collector, while taking the said orders in Suo-motu Revision, reversed both the orders dated 22/08/2012 and 04/10/2012 passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar, respectively. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal No. 38/2013 before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal, pleased to dismissed the revision vide order dated 01/10/204. Then, the respondent No.1, preferred an application for review of the order dated 01/10/2014 passed by the learned Tribunal, The learned Tribunal while deciding the review application, reheard the matter afresh and dealt with all the issues on merits once again. It ought to have been appreciated by the learned Tribunal that while exercising the writ jurisdiction it ought to have restricted itself with the error apparent on the face the record and ought not have corrected the decision. 4.2 In this behalf, the following judgments of the Supreme Court are worth referring to: (i) Inderchang Jain Vs. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 ; (ii) Sasi Vs. Arvindakshan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692 . It is well settled law that review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and finality of the judgment delivered by the Court and/or Tribunal will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. It has been held by the Apex Court and by this Hon'ble Court time and again that the powers of review are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct grave and palpable error. 4.3 It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal reviewing its order dated 01/10/2014 is illegal, erroneous and against the provisions of Section 17 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and/or the Code of Civil Procedure. 4.3 It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal reviewing its order dated 01/10/2014 is illegal, erroneous and against the provisions of Section 17 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and/or the Code of Civil Procedure. The earlier order dated 01/10/2014 passed by the learned Tribunal was very much in right earnest and that there was no error apparent on the face of record so as to justify the interference while considering the review application filed by the respondent No. 1 Assuming without conceding that the order dated 30/09/2013 passed by the Collector was without jurisdiction, then in that case also, the appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar and/or Deputy Collector would lay before the learned Tribunal under the provisions of Section 9 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Act and that the learned Tribunal is well within into power to decide the legality of the order for the Mamlatdar and/or the Deputy collector. Thus, the learned Tribunal in the first instance rightly concluded in its order dated 01/10/2014 that the land in question is of the ownership of the State Government and not of the private ownership. 4.4 The learned AGP submitted that reliance placed on the judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 660 of 2011 was misplaced inasmuch as, on the date when the Review Application was decided i.e. 20/03/2015, the SLP filed against the CAV judgment dated 09/09/2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 660 2011 was very much pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order 10/02/2012, was kind enough to issue notice and to direct maintenance of status quo. It is only on 03/07/2017 that the aforesaid SLP came to be dismissed. Thus, the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the Review Application, placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 660 of 2001. The learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 10/Section 12 carry the expression 'subject to the provisions of Chapter XIII' which categorically suggest that the said expression has been consciously used by the State Legislature with a purpose, i.e. To check and prevent misuses of exercise of power by the revenue officers. Thus, orders either passed by the Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector may be, will be appealable to the Collector under the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code. Thus, orders either passed by the Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector may be, will be appealable to the Collector under the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code. 4.5 It is further submitted that the issue as to whether the Collector could have exercised the powers under Chapter XIII of the Code determining the validity of the orders of the Mamlatdar and/or Deputy Collector was very much in session before the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10759 of 2011. The said writ petition, was heard by the learned single Judge specifically on the issue as regards the jurisdiction of the Collector to decide appeal if the order has been passed either by the Mamlatdar or the Deputy Collector in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 37. The arguments were advanced on behalf of the State Government categorically pointing out to the following effect:- "In view of the above, orders passed by Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector under Section 10 of the Code will be appealable to the Collector under the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Code, whereas the order passed by the Mamaltdar under Section 12 of the Code will also be appealable as per the provisions of the Section 13 of the Code and not to the Revenue Tribunal inasmuch as in view of Section 9 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, only orders passed by the Officers not below the rank of the Collector, would be appealable before the said Tribunal". It has also been contended on behalf of the State Government that if there is any doubt about the judgment of the learned Division Bench or of any learned Single Judge on the same issue, it would be in the fitness of things to refer the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice with a request to constitute a Bench of not less than two Judges to set afresh the issues in question. Reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in (2000) 10 SCC 518 . The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter was pleased to reserve the Judgment on 27/07/2018. Reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in (2000) 10 SCC 518 . The learned Single Judge after hearing the matter was pleased to reserve the Judgment on 27/07/2018. 4.6 It is reiterated that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in allowing the review application filed by the respondent herein considering the fact that the learned Tribunal itself after examining the record available before it, while rejecting the appeal in the first instance vide order dated 01/10/2014, held to the effect that the land bearing Survey No. 122 is of the ownership of the State Government. The said findings were recorded on the basis of the material available on record and once having come to a categorical finding on its own, the issue as to whether the Collector had a jurisdiction to take the order passed by the Mamlatdar and/or Deputy Collector in suo motu revision was inconsequential. Even otherwise also, as aforesaid, assuming without admitting that the Collector had no jurisdiction then in that eventuality, appeal would have been filed before the Revenue Tribunal against the order of the Mamlatdar and/or Deputy Collector and ultimately, it was the learned Tribunal who would have decided the issue on merits and more particularly, the issue as regards the ownership. 4.7 It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal in Review Application No. 53/2014 is required to be quashed and set aside as the review was not maintainable in view of decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court reported in 2000 1 GLR 553 . It is further submitted that without prejudice to aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, as aforesaid the review application filed by the respondent i snot maintainable and assuming for the sake of argument that the review application was barred by the Judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court i.e. 200 1 GLR 553, the power exercised was beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 as has been held by this Hon'ble Court in its decision 1994 2 GLR. Further, the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the review application by reconsidering the case of the respondent herein on merits, same can be arrived from the written arguments canvassed by the original applicant of the Review Application on page No. 168 to 176. Further, the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the review application by reconsidering the case of the respondent herein on merits, same can be arrived from the written arguments canvassed by the original applicant of the Review Application on page No. 168 to 176. It is further submitted that the contention raised by the original applicant in review application that review was maintainable and the judgment 2000 (1) GLR 553 of this Hon'ble Court was not applicable and that revision filed by the petitioner was not under the provision of Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is not correct, in fact, the revision application filed which was annexed at Page No. 134 to 163 more particularly page 135 it was clearly mentioned that revision is under Section 76A of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 4.8 The learned Tribunal erred in reviewing its own decision on the ground of change in law and more particularly when the judgment dated 01/10/2014 had attained finality, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeepkumar & Ors. Vs. West Bengal, (2015) 2 SCC 653 . 4.9 The learned Tribunal erred in review its own order as the same is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the reported decision as 2001 9 SCC 325 where it was held that the different view taken at later point of time is not ground to review its earlier decision. 4.10 Present petition which is filed by the State Government is required to be allowed by considering the additional submission made by the respondent No. 1, 2.6 and 3 to 6 as it can be seen from the additional affidavit that the respondent herein requested this Hon'ble Court to take into consideration merits of the matter which is clearly suggestive of the fact that the review application filed by the opponent is not maintainable. 4.11 Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, in the event this Hon'ble Court is not entertained the petition filed by the petitioner, in that case the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court may be continued or alternatively direct the parties to maintain status quo as directed by this Hon'ble Special Civil Application No.1237 of 2012 and allied matters dated 30/04/2018. In support of his submission, learned AGP referred and relied upon the following judgments: (i) Atulbhai Balabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and others, (1999) 2 GLH 314 ; (ii) Bhogilal M. Vaishnav Vs. State of Guajrat, reported in 1993 (0) HC 201784. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta assisted with Mr.Vimal Purohit, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1.2.6, 3 to 3.4, submitted that by way of present petition, the petitioner has sought to stay over the order dated 20/03/203/2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.. That, by way of present petition, the petitioner has sought to stay over the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. That, by virtue of the order dated 20.03.2015, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has allowed the Review Application filed by the present respondent nos. 1.2.6, 3 to 3.4 being CA No. 53 of 2014 filed in Appeal/AA/ 38/2013. The resultant effect of the aforesaid order passed in Review Application was such that the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned District Collector, Banaskantha came to be quashed and set aside as well as order dated 1.10.2014 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the aforesaid Appeal No.AA/38/2013 and the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Dist. Banaskantha passed in case No. JMN/37(2)/ Remand Case No. 2 of 2011 came to be restored. The resultant effect was such that land in question being old survey no.147/3, new survey no. 122 admeasuring hectare 0-50- 59 sq mtrs. of village Kumbhariya, Tal : Danta, Dist : Banaskantha was held to be of private ownership i.e. Present answering respondent. 5.1 It is the sole contention of the petitioner -State that the order dated 20.03.2015 passed in Review Application No. CA/53/2014 in Appeal No.AA/38/2013 is bad in law and without jurisdiction, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal did not have any power to entertain such an appeal. 5.2 Reliance is placed upon the judgment reported in 2000 1 GLR 553 annexed at Annexure K to the petition. By citing the aforesaid decision, it is the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal had no power under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 to entertain such a review application and that too without any justifiable reasons. By citing the aforesaid decision, it is the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal had no power under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 to entertain such a review application and that too without any justifiable reasons. 5.3 As against the aforesaid contention, it is say of the present respondents that the Tribunal has not committed any error in entertaining the appeal under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 since the appeal against any order passed under Section 37(2) of the BLRC is to be filed under Section 9 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958. In view of the said provision, sine the appeal was under Section-37(2) of the BLRC, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had powers to entertain review under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 since provision of Section-37(2) of the BLRC are included under Schedule 1. If the appeal or revision was under any provision which was / is not included under Schedule 1 attached to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 it could have been argued that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had no power to entertain such review but since the present appeal was filed under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act,1958 and the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 and the same having been included under the Schedule 1, review application was maintainable. As such, the aforesaid judgment cited by the State is helpful to the present respondent since in the said case, the revision was under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act and the said Section 76 of the BT & AL Act is not included in the schedule 1 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 and therefore, in the said judgment it was rightly held that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has no power to entertain such an appeal since Section 76 had no place in the first schedule. If the said ratio is made applicable to the present case in other words review is maintainable it the provision which is invoked or Section under which the appeal / Revision filed is included in the first schedule of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958. If the said ratio is made applicable to the present case in other words review is maintainable it the provision which is invoked or Section under which the appeal / Revision filed is included in the first schedule of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958. 5.4 That, in the instant case, order passed by the learned Mamlatdar was set aside by the Collector exercising the powers under Section 211 of the BLRC but however as per the ratio laid down by this Honourable Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.660 of 2011, the order passed by the Mamlatdar was deemed to be passed by the Mamlatdar was deemed to be passed by the learned District Collector under Section 37(2) of the BLRC and therefore, it would be only the Tribunal before whom the appeal was maintainable. 5.5 It is submitted that while deciding the appeal, the Tribunal had missed out the jurisdictional aspect that Collector would have no powers to take into suo motu revision the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar under Section 37(2) OF The BLRC though it was placed on record and pointed out that relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hounourable Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.660 of 2011. Hence, the present respondent was constrained to file review application pointing out the jurisdictional aspect and considering the same, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the review application. It is submitted that several aspects were reproduced, what was considered was only the jurisdictional error which was committed while deciding the appeal and therefore, it cannot be said that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had re-appreciated the entire evidence and passed fresh order. If at all, the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowing the Review Application is perused, the only aspect which had appealed to the Tribunal was "jurisdictional error" and therefore, it cannot be said the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal in any manner. 5.6 It is submitted that, hence, considering the totality of the facts and circumstance of the case, in nutshell considering Section 9 and 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 as well as Schedule 1 attached to the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958, there is no doubt that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had powers to entertain review application and to decide the same. The said aspect is not denied, disputed or dealt with by the State in the memo of the petition or the argument tendered. As such no other ground is canvassed by the State and therefore, limiting the said aspect and considering the aforesaid submission, this is a fit case where taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.660 of 2011, petition may kindly be dismissed. It is submitted that for the kind perusal of the Honourable Court Section 9 and 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958, reproduced as under and copy of the schedule 1 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R.1. 9. Jurisdiction of Tribunal:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions and orders of officers, not below the rank of a Collector or Deputy Commissioner, in respect of cases arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in the First Schedule. (2) Save as expressly provided in any enactment for the time being in force the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the Tribunal shall also have jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions and orders of such persons, officers and authorities in such other cases as the State Government may determine; and for that purpose the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to, amend or omit, any of the entries in the First Schedule, and thereupon the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction in such matter and the jurisdiction of any other person, officer or authority therein shall cease. (3) The State Government may, at any time, in like manner, cancel such notification or omit any entry from the First Schedule, and resume to itself such jurisdiction Provided that nothing herein shall prevent the State Government after such resumption of jurisdiction from conferring any such jurisdiction on any other person officer or authority. (3) The State Government may, at any time, in like manner, cancel such notification or omit any entry from the First Schedule, and resume to itself such jurisdiction Provided that nothing herein shall prevent the State Government after such resumption of jurisdiction from conferring any such jurisdiction on any other person officer or authority. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force when the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions and orders of, any person, officer or authority in any matter aforesaid, no other person, officer or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals from and revise decisions or orders of such person, officer or authority in that matter. 17. Review of orders of Tribunal: (1) The Tribunal may, either on its own motion or on the application of any party interested, and where the State Government is heard under section 15 on the application by that Government, review its own decision or order in any case, an pass in reference thereto such order as it thinks just and proper; Provided that no such application made by any party shall be entertained, unless the Tribunal is satisfied that there has been the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of such party or could not be produced by him at the time when its decision was made, or that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason: Provided further, that no such decision or order shall be varied or revised, unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order. (2) An application for review under sub-section (1) by any party or, as the case may be, by the State Government shall be made within 90 days from the date of decision or order of the Tribunal: Provided that in computing the period of limitation, the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), applicable to applications for review of a judgment or order of a Civil Court shall, so far as may be apply to applications for review under this section." Concluding, his arguments, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is legal, just and proper therefore, the present petition may be dismissed. 6. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there are three rounds of litigation in the present petition. Initially, the land of Survey No. 122 (Old Survey No. 147/3) situated at Village: Ambaji Taluka: Danata, District: Banaskantha admeasuring A.4-17 Gunthas, the private respondents herein had preferred an application under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (for brevity "BLRC) before the Mamlatdar, Danta which was registered as No. J.M.Ka.K.37(2) Case No. 1/06. The same was filed by the Mamlatdar vide order dated on 10/11/2005. Thereafter, Deputy Collector has by his order dated 29/12/2006 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for deciding afresh on Point Nos. 1 to 4 as mentioned in the order dated 29/12/2006. It further appears that the said remand case being Case No.1/07 was also came to be rejected by the Mamlatdar vide order dated 15/03/2008. 'The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 12/05/2009 in Jamin Appeal No. 4/08. 7. From the record, it further appears that the Collector, Banskantha has vide his order dated 17/05/2011 passed in appeal No.B/Jamin4/Revision 3/10 Kumbhariya quashed and set aside both the orders dated 15/03/2008 and 12/05/2009 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta and Deputy Collector, Palanpur respectively and matter was remanded to the Mamaltdar for deciding afresh. 7. From the record, it further appears that the Collector, Banskantha has vide his order dated 17/05/2011 passed in appeal No.B/Jamin4/Revision 3/10 Kumbhariya quashed and set aside both the orders dated 15/03/2008 and 12/05/2009 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta and Deputy Collector, Palanpur respectively and matter was remanded to the Mamaltdar for deciding afresh. The Mamlatdar, Danta has registered the remand case as No.Jmn/37 (2)/Remand Case No. 2/2011 and vide order dated 22/08/2012 held that the land belongs to one Lakhmanbhai Malaji Vanjara (Barot) (forefathers of the private respondents) and directed to mutate the names of (1) Babubhai Mishraji Lakhamnbhai Vanjara (Barot), (2) Otaji Lakhmanbhai Vanjara (Barot), (3) Badhaji Lakhmanbhai Malaji Vanjara (Barot) being heirs of deceased Lakhmanbhai Malaji Vanjara (Barot) in the revenue records. As the said order was found to be correct, the Deputy Collector, Palanpur has forwarded the same to the Collector, Banaskantha for perusal, however, the Collector, Bansakanthhas taken the said case as Suo-Motu Revision bearing No. B/Jamin-4/Suo-Motu/Revision/7/2013 Ambaji and vide order dated 30/09/2013 quashed and set aside both the orders dated 22/08/2012 and 04/10/2012 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta and Deputy Collector, Palanpur, respectively. 8. It further appears from the record that the order dated 30/09/203 passed by the Collector, Palanpur was challenged before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. AA/38/2013, which was rejected vide order dated 01/10/2014. Thereafter, private respondents of this petition has preferred Review Application No.53/2014 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has while allowing the said review application quashed and set aside the order dated 30/09/2013 passed by the Collector, Palanpur and confirmed the order dated 22/08/2012 passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta. 9. Main contention of the learned AGP appearing for the petitioner - State is that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has no power to entertain Review Application on merit. In support of his argument, learned AGP placed reliance on the judgments Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 and in the case of Sasi Vs. Arvindakshan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692 . In support of his argument, learned AGP placed reliance on the judgments Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 and in the case of Sasi Vs. Arvindakshan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692 . Further contention of the learned AGP is that the CAV judgment dated 09/09/2011 of this Hon'ble Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 660 of 2011 on which reliance was placed by the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme court and on the date when the Review Application was allowed by the Tribunal the said SLP was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which came to be dismissed on 03/07/2017 i.e. after the allowing of the Review Application by the Tribunal. The learned AGP further contended that the Tribunal erred in reviewing its own decision on the ground of change in law and more particularly, when the judgment dated 01/10/2014 attained finality, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeepkumar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 2 SCC 653 . Against this submission, learned advocate for the private respondents while inviting the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958, submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in entertaining the Review under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 as order passed under Section 37(2) of BLRC is to be filed under Section 9 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958. Since, the appeal was under Section 37(2) of BLRC, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has powers to entertain review under Section 17 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 as per provision of Section 37(2) of the BLRC are included under Schedule 1. As such, review application before the Tribunal is maintainable and learned Tribunal has rightly decided the same on merit under the aforesaid provision. Moreover, as per the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 660 of 2011, the order passed by the Mamlatdar was deemed to be passed by the learned Collector under Section 37(2) of the BLRC and therefore, it would be only the Tribunal before whom appeal was maintainable. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided the review application under Section 17 of the BLRC considering the aforesaid judgment and thereby not committed any error. 10. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided the review application under Section 17 of the BLRC considering the aforesaid judgment and thereby not committed any error. 10. I have gone through the order dated 01/10/2014 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. AA/38/2013 as well as judgment dated 20/03/2015 passed in Review Application No. 53/2014. On perusal of the order dated 20/03/2015, the learned Tribunal has dealt with issue of power to entertain Review Application in detail and while recording its findings. Learned Tribunal has recorded that power under Section 37(2) are vested with the Collector and Collector can delegate such powers. Moreover orders passed in exercise of powers Section 37(2) cannot be taken by the Collector in Suo-motu revision by himself. As held in the judgment and order dated 13/08/1970 by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 657/67, reported in 12 GLR 668, the Suo-motu Revision is not maintainable before the Collector against the order passed by the Mamlatdar in exercise of powers under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality or material irregularity or perversity in entertaining review application by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal against its own order. On perusal of the order dated 20/03/2015, it appears that the learned Tribunal has categorically discussed all the relevant facts and also provisions of the Devsthan Inami Abolition Act and records pertains to the same in respect of the land in question and after detailed verification of entire record, passed the impugned order. The learned Tribunal has dealt with all the issues pertain to the land in question and also taken care of the legal propositions. I have also gone through the judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the petitioner - State. Both the judgments are on the issue of powers of the Tribunal to entertain review application. It is true that the scope of review application before the Tribunal is limited to certain extended as provided under Section 17 of the BLRC, but, in the instant case, the Collector has taken the order passed by the Mamlatdar in Suo Motu revision and as per the provisions of Section 37(2) of the BLRC. It is true that the scope of review application before the Tribunal is limited to certain extended as provided under Section 17 of the BLRC, but, in the instant case, the Collector has taken the order passed by the Mamlatdar in Suo Motu revision and as per the provisions of Section 37(2) of the BLRC. As provided in the BLRC and as per ratio laid down by this Court, the Collector, himself cannot exercise Suo-motu powers of revision with respect to the orders passed by the Mamlatdar. Therefore, the order passed by the Collector on 30/09/2013 appealable before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal only and as the in the earlier order dated 01/10/2014 this aspect was not taken into consideration, the learned Tribunal has entertained the Review Application and dealt with the said issue and passed the impugned order, relying upon the judgment of this Court, reported in 12 GLR 668. Therefore, it cannot to be said that the learned Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion there appears no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the order dated 20/03/2015 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No. 53/2014. Hence, present petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Further order: After pronouncement of this judgment and order, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner - State requested to stay the operation and implementation of the same for a period of four months, to which, the learned advocate for the respondents heavily opposed, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said request is declined.