JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent State and its authorities. 2. This petition is directed against order dated 16th November, 2016 passed by Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad. Thereby the revisional authority dismissed the Revision Application No.13 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner and confirmed order dated 05th July, 2014 of the Collector, Gandhinagar. The impugned order was a common order passed in Revision Application No.11 of 2014 and Revision Application No.13 of 2014. 3. The facts in the background are that land bearing revenue Survey No.82, New Survey No.658 and Block No.19 admeasuring 50 Acres situated at Village Sadra, Gandhinagar, was granted to the father of the petitioner - Ramanlal Chhotalal Shah, now deceased, by order dated 09th July, 1968. The said grant was for the purpose of reclaiming of the land and was given on one year's lease. It appears that the lease period which expired at the end of one year, was extended for further five years by the Collector. The petitioner thereafter applied on 13th May, 1982 for grant of land on permanent basis. The Collector declined the request by communication dated 16th October, 1986 on the ground that the petitioner was not an agriculturist. 3.1 The aggrieved petitioner preferred Revision Application which earlier Revision Application was accepted on 06th November, 1987. The order of the Collector dated 16th October, 1986 was set aside and it was provided that upon the petitioner paying occupancy price, land could be granted on the condition to treat it as restricted tenure land. However, the Revenue Department decided against the petitioner and did not grant the land. 3.2 It appears that the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.3707 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 22nd July, 2007. The order of the Collector was set aside and this Court required the petitioner to make a fresh application and the Collector was directed to decide again on merits. Pursuant to this order the petitioner applied to the Collector and requested the Collector to grant the land on permanent basis as old tenure land. The order of the Collector was set aside and this Court required the petitioner to make a fresh application and the Collector was directed to decide again on merits. Pursuant to this order the petitioner applied to the Collector and requested the Collector to grant the land on permanent basis as old tenure land. 3.3 The Collector undertook inquiry pursuant to filing of application, got recorded various statements and Panchnama and after hearing the parties concerned, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not been personally cultivating and was residing at different village. It was found that no attempts were made to reclaim the land. The condition No.2 of order of grant dated 09th July, 1968 was breached. On which ground, the Collector passed order dated 05th July, 2014 to refuse the request of the petitioner for grant of the land and forfeited the same to the government. 4. Thereafter came to be filed the Revision Application to culminate into the impugned order. 5. On carefully considering the facts and the orders passed by the Collector as well as revisional authority, it could be noticed that certain glaring and decisive aspects were noticed based on facts by the authorities which led them to dismiss the plea of the petitioner for permanent grant of land. Both the authorities found that the lease holder deceased Ramanlal Chhotalal Shah was engaged in the legal profession at Bombay and was an advocate. Out of his three sons, two sons were also practicing law in Mumbai. They were staying at Ahmedabad and Mumbai, whereas the third son was doing business at Ahmedabad. It was specifically found and recorded that said deceased Ramanlal Chhotalal Shah never cultivated the land. 5.1 The Collector could record that the petitioner was not staying at the Sadra village where the land was situated. Not only no attempts were made to reclaim the land for which purpose it was granted, the petitioner failed to produce any bill towards expenses to suggest that the land was under cultivation. It was also not shown as to how and in what way the land was cultivated, as sought to be claimed. 5.2 The Collector, Gandhinagar, recorded the above findings and ordered to forfeit the land in question to vest the same in the State Government without any encumbrance. The prayer of the petitioner for permanently granting the land was refused. It was also not shown as to how and in what way the land was cultivated, as sought to be claimed. 5.2 The Collector, Gandhinagar, recorded the above findings and ordered to forfeit the land in question to vest the same in the State Government without any encumbrance. The prayer of the petitioner for permanently granting the land was refused. This order of the Collector was revisited with by the revisional authority. The aforesaid aspects weighed with the revisional authority for dismissing the Revision Application. Thus, it was clear and categorical findings recorded that the petitioner was not residing at the place and that it was not established by the petitioner that he was cultivating the land. It could not be disputed the aspect even that third party was in possession of the land. 6. The findings recorded by the authorities below upto the revisional authority were the concurrent findings of facts. They were based on relevant material and reasonably arrived at. No perversity was seen. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the orders of the revenue authorities. No case is made out to exercise powers for interfering in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The orders passed by the authorities including the revisional authority could be said to be eminently just, proper and legal. 7. The petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. FURTHER ORDER At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Qureshi requests that the interim relief which was granted earlier may be continued for some time. In view of what is recorded hereinabove leading to dismissal of the petition, the request is not acceptable, hence rejected.