ORDER : 1. Both these petitions arise challenging order dated 26.6.2014 passed by the Special Secretary (Revenue Department) (Appeals), Ahmedabad. 2. The lands in question as far as the petition of the State Government i.e. Special Civil Application No. 10367 of 2015 are lands bearing Survey Nos. 51/1-B, 57/1, 58/1 and 24/6 of village Ukardi, Taluka Mandal, District Ahmedabad and lands bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 84/13, 84/14, 84/19 and 84/21 of village Manpura, Taluka Mandal, District Ahemdabad. 3. Special Civil Application No. 2380 of 2015 is by heirs of Sursangji Juhaji Thakore who were cultivating land bearing Survey Nos. 84/14 admeasuring 20 Acres and 12 Gunthas challenge the same order insofar as the order allowing the Revision whereby land allotment to Kalubha Motisang is confirmed. 4. Facts of Special Civil Application No. 10367/2015: 4.1. On 6.2.1954, Survey No. 84 (145 A:23 G) was recorded as sarkari padtar vide mutation entry No. 8 under Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’). 4.2. 34 Acres and 35 Gunthas is found to be cultivated and, therefore, entered in the name of possessors. Since as far as lands bearing Survey Nos. 51/1-B, 57/1, 58/1, the order under challenge only remands the matters, the Court will restrict its review only as far as lands with Survey Nos. 84/13, 84/14 and 84/21 are concerned. Out of the entire Survey No. of 84, Survey No. 84/13 was land admeasuring 17 Acre and 11 Gunthas. 5. On 18.12.1971 on a request made for regularization of possession on such sarkari padtar land, Sursangji Juhaji filed an application and was accordingly allotted 5 Acres and 27 Gunthas. Of the 5 Acres and 27 Gunthas allotted to Keshaji, he sold 4 Acre and 38 Gunthas on 2.12.2006 to Nitaben and Nitaben in turn sold the land on 11.5.2007 to Respondent Nos. 41 and 42 and respondent Nos. 41 and 42 bought the entire 5 Acre and 37 Gunthas on 2.12.2014. 6. On 7.1.2009, Badsang Solanki applied for allotment of 9 Acres and 34 Gunthas of land and was so allotted from 84/13. Being aggrieved by this order Keshaji filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector by his order dated 8.5.2010 allowed the appeal holding that the request for allotment could not have been considered in favour of Badsang after 55 years after it was declared a sarkari padtar on 6.2.1954. Being aggrieved by this order Keshaji filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector by his order dated 8.5.2010 allowed the appeal holding that the request for allotment could not have been considered in favour of Badsang after 55 years after it was declared a sarkari padtar on 6.2.1954. Name of Keshaji was, therefore, mutated on 30.12.2010. On 26.03.2013, heirs of Keshaji sold even this parcel of land to Kamshi Desai who sold the same to respondent No. 45 on 2.12.2014. Therefore, in all from Survey Nos. 84/13, 5 Acres and 37 Gunthas and 9 Acres and 34 Gunthas were sold by successors of Keshaji. 7. As far as Survey No. 84/14 is concerned, the total land was admeasuring 20 Acres and 12 Gunthas. 1 Acre and 30 Gunthas was kharaba land. One Sursangji made an application for allotment of 15 Acre. (This Survey number is also a matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 2380 of 2015 by the private respondents.) On 15.12.1971, Sursangji was allotted 15 Acre of land. He sold these lands to one Nitaben Patel in the year 2006 who in turn sold it to respondent Nos. 41 and 42 in the year 2007 and on 18.9.2014, it was sold to respondent No. 45. 8. As far as Survey No. 84/14 in Special Civil Application No. 2380 of 2015 by the private respondents is concerned, one Kalubha Motisang was allotted 3 Acres and 22 Gunthas of land on 9.2.2009. As 15 Acres was already allotted to Sursangji on 15.12.1971, he sold the lands to subsequent purchasers in the years 2009 and 2014. The order of allotment to Kalusinh was cancelled by Collector on 9.2.2009 and by the revision of 22.6.2014 that order was set aside and therefore allotment in favour of Kalusinh stood confirmed. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 2380 of 2015 contend that they are the occupiers of Survey No. 84/14 admeasuring 20 Acres and 12 Gunthas. 9. Therefore, of the total land 84/14, 15 Acres was allotted to Sursangji and 3 Acre and 22 Gunthas to Kalusinh which the respondents are successive purchasers from Sursangji. 10. Factual synopsis of both the petitions is as under: (i) On 6th February, 1954, Survey No. 84 (145 Acres 23 Gunthas) was recorded as sarkari padtar vide mutation entry No. 8 under Section 6 of the Act. 10. Factual synopsis of both the petitions is as under: (i) On 6th February, 1954, Survey No. 84 (145 Acres 23 Gunthas) was recorded as sarkari padtar vide mutation entry No. 8 under Section 6 of the Act. Defendant (ii) The captioned petition is concerned with Survey No. 84/14 totally admeasuring 20 Acres and 12 Gunthas, out of which 18 Acres and 22 Gunthas was entered as Sarkari Padtar land and 1 Acre 30 Gunthas was kharaba land. (iii) In 1971 Sursangji Juhaji i.e. predecessor of the present petitioners filed an application for allotment of Survey No. 84/14 to the extent of 15 Acres. (iv) By order of 15.12.1971, 15 Acres of Survey No. 84/14 was allotted to Sursangji Juhaji. (v) In the revenue records, name of Sursangji Juhaji has continued in Survey No. 84/14 only to the extent of 15 Acres. Remaining 3 Acres and 22 Gunthas has continued as sarkari padtar. (vi) In 2009, Kalubha Motisang applied for allotment of Survey No. 84/14 to the extent of 3 Acres and 22 Gunthas. By an order dated 9.2.2009, 3 Acres and 22 Gunthas were allotted to Kalubha Motisang. (vii) By an order dated 21.2.2012, the Collector has taken the order of Deputy Collector dated 9.2.2009 allotting Survey No. 84/14 (3 Acres and 22 Gunthas) and quashed and set aside the order of Deputy Collector. (viii) Against order of the Collector, revision was filed before the SSRD in MVV/JMN/ AMD/10/2012. Though order dated 26.6.2014, SSRD has quashed and set aside order of Collector dated 21.2.2012, and upheld orders of Deputy Collector dated 9.1.2009. (ix) On 6.2.1954, Survey No. 84 (145 Acres ‘A’ 23 Gunthas ‘G’ was recorded as sarkari padtar vide mutation entry No. 8 without any order passed in this regard, under Section 6 of the Act. (x) On the same day i.e. 6.2.1954, out of total portion of Survey No. 84, 34A, 35G is found to be cultivated and thus entered in the name of possessors through mutation entry No. 9. (xi) Out of the entire portion of Survey No. 84, respondent No. 45 is concerned with Survey Nos. 84/13, 84/14 and 84/21. Facts pertaining to Survey No. 84/13 - 17 Acres and 11 Gunthas:- 1971 2009 Keshaji Jesanji filed an application for allotment of an area of 5 A 37 G Badsang Solanki applied for allotment of area of 9 A 34 G to Deputy Collector. 84/13, 84/14 and 84/21. Facts pertaining to Survey No. 84/13 - 17 Acres and 11 Gunthas:- 1971 2009 Keshaji Jesanji filed an application for allotment of an area of 5 A 37 G Badsang Solanki applied for allotment of area of 9 A 34 G to Deputy Collector. 15.12.1971 09.02.2009 5 A 37 G allotted to Keshaji Jesangji 9 A 34 G was allotted to Badsang Solanki (In Case JMN/MANPURA/SR 8/2009) 02.12.2006 Legal heirs of Keshaji soled 4 A 38 NG to Nitaben Patel and others out of 5 A 37 G allotted to Keshaji Jesangji (Sale deed No. 1919/2006) Keshaji Jesangi files LB Appeal No. 42/2009 before Collector against above order. 11.05.2007 08.05.2010 Nitaben Patel and Others Sold 4 A 38 G to respondent Nos. 41 and 42 (Sale deed No. 1119/2007) Collector allows LB Appeal No. 42/2009 14.02.2008 30.12.2010 Legal heirs of Keshaji sold remaining 39.4 G to respondent Nos. 41 and 42. (Sale deed No. 310/2008) Name of Keshaji Jesangi mutated in revenue records pursuant to order of Collector in LB Appeal 42/2009. 02.12.2014 26.03.2013 Total 5 A 37 G sold to respondent No. 45 (Sale deed No. 315/2015) Heirs of Keshaji sold 9 A 34 G to Kamshi Desai and Kaushik Desai 2.12.2014 9 A 34 G sold to respondent No. 45. (Sale deed No. 316/2015) Facts pertaining to Survey No. 84/14 - 20 Acres and 12 Gunthas:- 1971 2009 Sursangji Juhaji filed an application for allotment of an area of 15 A Kalubha Motisang applied for allotment of area of 3 A 22 G to Deputy Collector. 15.12.1971 09.02.2009 15 A allotted to Sursangji Juhaji 3 A 22 G allotted to Kalubha Motisang 27.11.2006 28.04.2009 15 A sold by Sursangji Juhaji to Nitaben Patel and others (Sale deed No. 1885/2006) 3 A 22 G sold by Kalubha Motisang to respondent Nos. 43 and 44. 11.05.2007 25.09.2014 Nitaben Patel and Others sold 15 A to respondent Nos. 41 and 42 (Sale deed No. 1119/2007) Respondent Nos. 43 and 44 sold 3 A 22 G to respondent No. 45 (Sale deed No. 350/2015) 18.09.2014 Respondent Nos. 43 and 44. 11.05.2007 25.09.2014 Nitaben Patel and Others sold 15 A to respondent Nos. 41 and 42 (Sale deed No. 1119/2007) Respondent Nos. 43 and 44 sold 3 A 22 G to respondent No. 45 (Sale deed No. 350/2015) 18.09.2014 Respondent Nos. 41 and 42 sold 15 A to respondent No. 45 (Sale deed No. 349/2015) Facts pertaining to Survey No. 84/21 - 5 Acres and 13 Gunthas:- 2009 Kalubha Motisang applied before Deputy Collector for allotment of 5 A 13 G. 09.02.2009 5 A 13 G allotted to Kalubha Motisang by Deputy Collector 28.04.2009 Kalubha Motisang sold 5 A 13 G to respondent Nos.43 and 44 (Sale Deed No. 686/2009) 07.11.2014 Respondent Nos. 43 and 44 sold 5 A 13 G to respondent No. 45 (Sale deed No. 1106/2015) 11. So factually each parcel of lands connected to Survey No. 84 which has entered in the record on 6.2.1954 as sarkari padtar was then allotted in 1971 and 2009 repetitively to Keshaji Jesangji and Sursangji who sold there lands to the respondents who were successive purchasers. 12. These lands allotted to the respective allottes in 1971 and then 2009 by orders of the revenue authorities are set aside by the Special Secretary on the ground that they were sarkari padtar in 1951 and 55 years after being so, in 2009, the Collector could not have entered the names of owners/allottes that they were sarkari padtar. While the State was challenged this order insofar as it is for Survey No. 84 and 51, the petitioner claims to be allotted of 84/14. 13. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing in Special Civil Application No. 10367 of 2015 would contend that the lands admitted were in the name of the State Government from 1954 to 2009. Mutation entries in favour of private respondents were done after a long period of 55 years. No seller could have been taken by Sursangji and/or Kalubha for allotment under the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, because the lands vested in the State Government under the provisions of Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949. Reliance was placed on the decision of Anand D. Bodariya Salt and Storage Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Gujarat, 2013 (1) GLR 558 . Reliance was placed on the decision of Anand D. Bodariya Salt and Storage Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Gujarat, 2013 (1) GLR 558 . Without there being an application for condonation of delay the order dated 9.2.2009 could not have been passed. 14. In Special Civil Application No. 2380 of 2015, Mr. Darshan Dave, learned counsel appears for Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners and submitted as under: (i) The petitioners are the occupants of Survey No. 84/14 admeasuring 18 Acre and 22 Gunthas + 1 Acre and 30 Gunthas (kharabo land) so in total 20 Acres and 12 Gunthas. That, out of 20 Acres and 12 Gunthas of land, only 15 acres of land was regularized in favour of the petitioners by Collector, Ahmedabad vide order dated 15.12.1971 on the recommendation of Mamlatdar and Prant Officer, Viramgam and rest of the land admeasuring 5 Acres and 12 Gunthas land was no regularized but it is in possession of petitioners since 1854 till today. (ii) That after period of 55 years, on 7.1.2009, Kalubha Motisang made an application without any documentary evidence qua Survey Nos.84/14 before the Deputy Collector to restore his name in the Survey No. 84/14 admeasuring 1.33.55 square meters and 0.70.82 square meters and within one month i.e. on 9.2.2009, the Deputy Collector passed an order in JMN/Manpura/Mandal/SR9/09 directing Mamlatdar, Mandal to restore the names of original occupants after due verification. It is submitted that immediately on 28.4.2009, Kalubha Motisang sold the property to respondent Nos. 10 and 11 namely: Vikramsinh Sendhbhai and Sangitaben Sendhabhai to change hands in the property. No order was passed for condonation of delay by the Deputy Collector. (iii) Without verifying the revenue records wherein the names of the petitioners are running since 1854, the Mamlatdar, Mandal straight away restored the name of the Kalubha Motisang without verification of revenue records and even without calling the petitioners who are occupants to put their case and, therefore, it is case of the petitioners that they are not given opportunity of hearing to put their case before the Deputy Collector or Mamlatdar, Mandal and, therefore, the order passed dated 9.2.2009 is clear breach of principles of natural justice. (iv) It is the case of the petitioners that Kalubha Motisang or his predecessors were not having title over the property Survey No. 84/14 and hence, they cannot transfer the title to the third party. That as and when the petitioners came to know about the sale deed 28.4.2009 when the impugned order of SRD was passed dated 26.6.2014, the petitioners have immediately filed suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 23/16 alongwith injunction application in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam. It is the case of the petitioners that the learned Judge was pleased to allow the interim injunction application vide orders dated 26.03.2018 granting stay for alienating the property against the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 herein. The said order had not been challenged further and hence, it has attained finality. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 45 cannot get the right over the title of the property because the suit is pending for adjudication of title. (v) In sum and substance, first it is the petitioners' case that the respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 45 and their predecessors are not having right title over the property as the revenue records shows that the petitioners are in possession and occupation of the property and without affording opportunity of hearing to original occupants - the petitioners the orders dated 9.2.2009 and 21.2.2012 which have been merged into impugned order dated 26.6.2014 were passed and, therefore, the present petition is filed challenging the same. Second, there is not a single proof of entry in revenue records which shows the names of the predecessors of respondent No. 10, 11 and 45. Third, the application was filed after period of 55 years and without passing any order for condonation of delay straight away order dated 9.2.2009 was passed and hence, it is nullity. Fourth, there is no mention of statutory power used by the Deputy Collector while passing order dated 26.6.2014 o the application filed by Kalubha Motisang under Section 65 of the Tenancy Act (said section is for conversion of land into non agricultural land) and hence, it is nullity. Fifth, no appeal is maintainable on the order passed under Section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act. Fifth, no appeal is maintainable on the order passed under Section 6 of the Taluqdari Abolition Act. Sixth, the order dated 15.12.1971 passed by the Collector does not reflect name of respondent Nos.10, 11 and their predecessors in the land bearing Survey Nos. 84/14. Seventh the title of the property bearing Survey No. 84/14 is yet to be decided by the Civil Court, Viramgam in Special Civil Suit No. 23/2016 and therefore, the impugned order dated 26.6.2014 merging from orders dated 9.2.2009 and 21.2.2012 is bad in law and required to be quashed and set aside and the Deputy Collector may pass an order after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-occupants. 15. In both the petitions, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for respondent No. 45 and 47 representing who are subsequent purchasers. As far as Special Civil Application No. 10367 of 2015 is concerned, he submitted as under: (i) Survey No. 84 was entered as sarkari padtar under the Act simply by way of mutation entry No. 8, without passing any order by the competent authority. (ii) Sections 6 and 7 of the Act contemplate that for any land to vest in the Government under Section 6, an inquiry is required to be undertaken with respect to limits of the wanta, period for which land has remain uncultivated, rights of other persons as may be established, whether compensation is to be paid or not, etc. Therefore, land cannot vest with the Government under Section 6 of the Act without an order of competent authority, giving findings on fact regarding the aforesaid aspects. (iii) By way of mutation entry No. 9 which was recorded on the same day as mutation entry No. 8 i.e. 6.2.1954, certain portions of Survey No. 84 were allotted to the occupants on a finding of fact that these portions of the land were cultivated by the occupants. Therefore, even in 1954, the Government has accepted that land cannot vest in the Government when rights of other persons have been established and/or cultivation of land has been undertaken. (iv) Section 6 of the Act in any case does not extinguish rights of persons other than the taluqdars. The petitioner has not disputed that persons who have been allotted land by the Deputy Collector were occupants of the land. Therefore, rights of other persons in the lands are established and undisputed. (iv) Section 6 of the Act in any case does not extinguish rights of persons other than the taluqdars. The petitioner has not disputed that persons who have been allotted land by the Deputy Collector were occupants of the land. Therefore, rights of other persons in the lands are established and undisputed. (v) The report of the Mamlatdar dated 7.1.2009 (Pg 26) also concludes that the subject lands should be allotted to the occupants. This report of the Mamlatdar dated 7.1.2009 has not been challenged. (vi) By order of the Collector dated 15.12.1971, the Government has allotted certain portions of Survey Nos. 84/13 and 84/14 to the occupants of the said lands. This order has never been challenged. Therefore, Mutation Entry No. 9 of 6.2.1954 as well as order of Collector dated 15.12.1971 shows that the Government from the very beginning allotted parcels of Survey No. 84 to the occupants as and when their rights have been established. Therefore, orders of Deputy Collector dated 9.2.2009 allotting lands to the occupant is in tune with actions of the Government since 1954. Therefore, the aspect of limitation does not apply in the present case. (vii) Survey Nos. 84/13, 84/14 and 84/21 have been sold multiple times since their allotment in 2009. Respondent No. 45 has purchased the said lands (approximately 40 Acres) alongwith about 300 Acres of other lands, by way of Registered Sale Deeds on due payment of consideration, for the purpose of setting up a manufacturing plant. Therefore, the petitioner cannot pray for the said lands to be vested in the Government. 16. Submissions in Special Civil Application No. 2380 of 2015 of Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 45 and 47 are as under: (i) The petitioners have deliberately suppressed the fact that Survey No. 84/14 to the extent of 15 Acres allotted to the petitioners in 1971 has already been sold by the petitioners to Nitaben Patel and Others by sale deed No. 1885 of 2006 on 23rd November, 2006 (Sale deed at Page No. 157; Mutation Entry at Page 156; Reply of respondent at Paragraph No. 7 at Page 203). For this reason alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. (ii) The petitioners have made a request in 1971 to be allotted only 15 Acres of Survey No. 84/14. For this reason alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. (ii) The petitioners have made a request in 1971 to be allotted only 15 Acres of Survey No. 84/14. The petitioners have not challenged the order dated 15th December, 1971 at any point of time. Since 1971, petitioners have not made any claims to the remaining 3 Acres and 22 Gunthas. (iii) The area of 3 Acres and 22 Gunthas has been alloted to Kalubha Motisang by the order of the Deputy Collector dated 9th February, 2009. This order has not been challenged by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus to challenge the order of the SSRD dated 26th June, 2014. (iv) By challenging the order of SSRD 26th June, 2014, the petitioners are effectively seeking that Survey No. 84/14 to the extent 3 Acres 22 Gunthas be given to the Government. Therefore, the prayers sought are absurd and cannot be granted. (v) The petitioners have never raised a claim on the Survey No. 84/14 to extent of 3 Acres 22 Gunthas. Such a claim has been suddenly made in the captioned petition after land was purchased by respondent No. 47 through registered sale deed No. 35 of 2015 on 25th September, 2014. Clearly, the captioned petition is mischievous. (vi) Admittedly, the petitioners have already filed a suit with respect to Survey No. 84/14, and, therefore, their right, title or interest in the subject land, if any, is pending adjudication. (vii) The present respondent is bonafide purchaser of entire portion of Survey No. 84/14 on due payment of consideration. For this reason also, the petition ought to be dismissed. 16.1. He also taken me through the affidavits filed in the petitions. 17. In case of parcel of land i.e. 84/13, 84/14 and 84/21 i.e. for the entire Survey No. 84, no revenue record by merely making an entry i.e. mutation entry No. 8 could have been made without passing any order by the competent authority. 18. The provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 read as under: Section 6: All public roads, etc. 18. The provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 read as under: Section 6: All public roads, etc. not situate in want as to vest in the [Government]: “All public roads, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes and fences on, or beside, the same, the bed of the sea and of harbors, creeks below high water mark, and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes, wells and tanks and all canals, and water courses, and all standing and flowing water, all un-built village site lands all waste lands and all uncultivated lands (excluding lands used for building or other non-agricultural purposes), which are not situate within the limits of the want as belonging to a taluqdar in a Taluqdari estate shall except in so far as any right of any person other than the taluqdar may be established in any over the same and except as may otherwise be provided by any law for the time being in force, vest in and shall be deemed to be, with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of the [Government] and all rights held by a taluqdar in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished and it shall be lawful for the Collector, subject to the general or special orders of the (Commissioner), to dispose them of as he deems fit, subject always to the rights of way and of other rights of the public or of individuals legally subsisting. Explanation I - For the purposes of this section, land shall be deemed to be cultivated, if it has not been cultivated for a continuous period of three years immediately before the date on which this Act comes into force. Explanation II - For the purposes of this section waste land means land unfit for cultivation and includes:- (a) land on which grass grows naturally. Explanation II - For the purposes of this section waste land means land unfit for cultivation and includes:- (a) land on which grass grows naturally. (b) land in which there exists any mines, whether being worked or not, any minerals, whether discovered or not and any quarries, whether being worked or not.” Section 7: Compensation taluqdars for extinguishment of rights under the proceeding section:- “(1) Any taluqdar having any rights in such property shall be entitled to compensation in the manner provided in the following paragraphs, namely:- (a) [on or before the 31st day of March, 1952] the taluqdar shall apply in writing to the Collector stating the nature of his right, the grounds of his claim and the amount of compensation claimed by him for the extinguishment of his rights. (b) the Collector shall hold a formal inquiry in the manner provided in the Code and if the Collector is satisfied that the applicant had any rights in the land, and that such rights have been extinguished under the last proceeding section, shall make an award in the manner prescribed in Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), subject to the following conditions:- (i) if the property acquired is waste or uncultivated but is culturable land the amount of compensation shall not exceed three times the assessment of the land: Provided that if the has not been assessed the amount of compensation shall not exceed such amount of assessment as would be leviable in the same village on the same extent of similar land used for the same purpose. (ii) if the property is land over which the public has been enjoying or acquired a right of way or any individual has any right of easement, the amount of compensation shall not exceed the amount of the annual assessment leviable in the village for uncultivated land in accordance with the rules made under the Code or if such rules do not provide the levy of such assessment, such amount as in the opinion of the Collector shall be the market value of the right or interest held by the Claimant. (iii) if there are any trees or structures on the land, the amount of compensation shall be the market value of such trees or structures, as the case may be. (iii) if there are any trees or structures on the land, the amount of compensation shall be the market value of such trees or structures, as the case may be. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, the ‘market value’ shall mean the value as estimated in accordance with the provisions of section 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (V of 1894) in so far as such provisions may be applicable. (2) Every award made under sub-section (1) shall be in the form prescribed in section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), and the provisions of the said Act, shall, so far as may be, apply to the making of such award. 19. Reading the aforesaid provisions would indicate that such orders of vesting lands under Section 6 of the Act cannot be passed unless a formal inquiry is held. 20. As far as mutation entry No. 9 is seen, it is on the same day recording that parts of Survey No. 84 were allotted to the occupants and they were cultivated by them, therefore, even otherwise the stand of the Government that they were sarkari padtar cannot be accepted. 21. The provisions of Section 6 cannot have any bearing on the rights of the original allottees who were alloted such land as the provisions of the Taluqdari Act would not apply to them. Such allottees were so in possession by virtue of the orders pursuant to reports of the Mamlatdar and earlier orders of the year 1971 which were never challenged. 22. As far as Survey No. 84/14 is concerned, the predecessors of the petitioner had only made a request for allotment of 15 acres. No claim was made to the remaining 3 Acres and 22 Gunthas which land was even otherwise allotted to one Kalubha Motising in 2009, which order was not challenged by the petitioners. No challenge, therefore, can be made to the order of the Special Secretary dated 26.6.2014. 23. Even otherwise, a suit is filed by such petitioner for the subject land which is pending. That suit can be decided on merits and considerations hereinabove may not weigh with the trial Court and the same shall be decided on merits. 24. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.