JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "8(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.5.2016 made by respondent no. 1 in Revision Application No. 3/2015 as well as order dated 10.6.2010 passed by respondent no. 2, as being unjust, arbitrary and against the directions given by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 3476 of 2009 and L.P.A. No. 2234 of 2009; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of impugned order dated 31.5.2016 made by respondent no. 1 in Revision Application No. 3/2015 and order dated 10.6.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 and direct the respondent no. 2 to initiate appropriate action to rectify the error in accordance with law, as per directions given by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 3476 of 2009 and L.P.A. No. 2234 of 2009 pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice." 2. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed off finally at admission stage. 3. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani waives service of notice of rule for respondents. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Tanna for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani for respondents. 4. The facts of the present case in nutshell are as under: 4.1. The petitioner is registered trust known as Victoria Jubilee Hospital Trust and its allied concern known as Ranchhodlal Chhotalal Dispensary, which came to be allotted land from the erstwhile State of Bombay between 1881 and 1903. It is stated that in the year 1922, the State of Bombay introduced survey and settlement according to which the petitioner trust was assigned City Survey No. 608, Railwaypura, Ahmedabad and the land allotted to the second trust i.e. Ranchhodlal Chhotalal Dispensary was given Survey No. 609. It is further submitted that the land bearing City Survey No. 608 was measured for the first time in the year 1922 in two parts. It is further submitted that the land bearing City Survey No. 608 was measured for the first time in the year 1922 in two parts. The measurement sheet no. 9 recorded that one piece of land is admeasuring 2589 sq. yards whereas the measurement sheet no. 10 recorded the extent of another parcel of land as admeasuring 15,254 sq. yards. It is the case of the petitioner that while totalling the above two measurements, the concerned authority made an arithmetical error and total the above two figures as 10,843 sq. yards whereas the said figures must total to 17,843 sq. yards. Thus, it is clear from the record that the said error is an arithmetical error. 4.2. It is further submitted that in the year 1964-65, the major portion of survey no. 609 i.e. the portion of Ranchhodlal Chhotalal Dispensary was acquired by the government for Ahmedabad Telephone Exchange leaving behind 3,733 sq. yards with a new survey no. 609/A. 4.3. It is stated that in the present petition, the dispute pertains to the arithmetical error in the total area of measurement in respect of the land bearing City Survey No. 608 owned by the petitioner trust. It is further stated that after the introduction of survey and settlement, the Ahmedabad Municipality introduced the property cards. The property cards prepared in respect of Survey No. 608, through inadvertence also continued the same arithmetical error which was made while survey and settlement and mentioned the area as 10,843 sq. yards instead of 17,843 sq. yards. 4.4. When the petitioner realized the mistake committed in the concerned record of the authority, request was made to the authority for rectification of the error. In the meantime, the petitioner trust developed the part of the land after obtaining appropriate permission from the competent authorities. Pursuant to the application given by the petitioner, the City Survey Superintendent visited the site on 7.7.2000 and after verification, made a proposal to Superintendent of Land Records for correction of measurement. The Superintendent of Land Records, after verifying the material, passed an order on 13.7.2001, whereby the measurement was corrected as 17,843 sq. yards instead of 10,843 sq. yards. Thereafter, the Settlement Commissioner, after verifying the record and orders, vide order dated 6.8.2001 held that City Survey No. 608 of Railwaypura is admeasuring 17,843 sq. yards instead of 10,843 sq. yards. 4.5. yards instead of 10,843 sq. yards. Thereafter, the Settlement Commissioner, after verifying the record and orders, vide order dated 6.8.2001 held that City Survey No. 608 of Railwaypura is admeasuring 17,843 sq. yards instead of 10,843 sq. yards. 4.5. It is further stated in the petition that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner was taken into suo-motu revision by respondent no. 1-SSRD in the year 2004. Thereafter, by an order dated 6.12.2004, respondent no. 1 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner and the Director of Land Records. 4.6. It is stated that thereafter, the government took the decision to conduct inquiry under Section 37(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code ('the Code' for short). Inquiry was conducted by the City Survey Superintendent. The report was submitted on 5.5.2007, whereby the said officer arrived to the conclusion that the area on the spot tallied with the total measurement as mentioned in the original measurement sheet nos. 9 and 10 prepared during the original first survey conducted in the year 1922. The report was submitted to the Collector through the Deputy Collector. 4.7. Though the Collector had no jurisdiction to take the order passed by the City Survey Superintendent in revision, he initiated the proceedings under Section 211 of the Code and thereafter passed an order on 30.6.2008, whereby the Collector quashed and set aside the order passed by the City Survey Superintendent conducting the inquiry under Section 37(2) of the Code. The petitioner, therefore, filed Revision Application no. 27 of 2008 before the respondent no. 1-SSRD. However, SSRD dismissed the said revision application vide order dated 30.3.2009. 4.8. The petitioner therefore filed Special Civil Application No. 3476 of 2009 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 13.5.2009, quashed and set aside the order passed by the SSRD as well as the Collector and thereby directed the respondent no. 2-Collector to initiate the rectification proceedings. 4.9. It is also stated that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondent-State by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 2234 of 2009. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.2.2010, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and thereby confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the respondent no. 2 to carry out the rectification procedure as directed by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the relevant records. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.2.2010, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and thereby confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and directed the respondent no. 2 to carry out the rectification procedure as directed by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the relevant records. 4.10. In this petition, the petitioner had raised the grievance that though the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has directed the respondent-Collector to initiate the process of rectification of the record, the respondent-Collector, by impugned order dated 10.6.2010, held that as per the records, City Survey No. 608 is admeasuring 10,843 sq. yards only. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing revision application before the respondent-SSRD. However, the respondent-SSRD vide order dated 31.5.2016 rejected the revision application on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that the order passed by the Collector is as per the record. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition. 5. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Tanna appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, referred to the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2234 of 2009. After referring to the same, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench has directed the respondent-Collector to carry out the rectification procedure as directed by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the relevant record. It was also observed that the rectification exercise will be completed by the present Collector as directed within six months from the date of the said order. However, instead of correcting the error, the respondent Collector has rejected the request of the petitioner. 5.1. It is further submitted that in this petition, this Court has passed the interim order on 9.1.2018 whereby the respondent no. 2 is directed to get the property measured through the competent authority and place a report on record of this petition on or before 5.2.2018. Accordingly, by way of an affidavit filed on 5.1.2019 by Deputy Collector on behalf of respondent no. 2, it is stated that the city survey officers were requested to take measurement of the subject land and city survey officer measured the said land being city survey no. 608/1, 608/2 and 608/3 and composite measurement sheet was prepared on 3.2.2019. The measurement sheet has been produced on record. Learned counsel has referred to page no. 2, it is stated that the city survey officers were requested to take measurement of the subject land and city survey officer measured the said land being city survey no. 608/1, 608/2 and 608/3 and composite measurement sheet was prepared on 3.2.2019. The measurement sheet has been produced on record. Learned counsel has referred to page no. 127 of the compilation and submitted that in view of the order of Deputy Collector, Navrangpura Prant, Ahmedabad passed on 16.9.2011, three parts of City Survey No. 608 were made. It is further stated in the said report that City Survey No. 608/1 is admeasuring 1486.60 sq. mtrs.(which will be equivalent to 1778 sq. yards). The City Survey No. 608/2 is 5852.84 sq. mtrs.(which is equivalent to 7000 sq. yards) and City Survey No. 608/3 is admeasuring 7579.45 sq. mtrs.(which is equivalent to 9065 sq. yards). Thus, the total area of aforesaid three city survey numbers would be 17,843 sq. yards. It is also submitted that the measurement is carried out by the concerned authority by total stationed machine which is one of the most authentic way of finding out the best measurement. It is therefore urged by learned counsel that when the measurement carried out by the competent authority is on record, the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities be set aside and appropriate direction be issued to the respondent Collector to rectify the mistake. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred to the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 and stated that the petitioner has filed civil suit in the year 2010 before the civil court which is pending. It is further submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader, after recording the reasoning recorded by the respondent authorities, that no error was committed by the respondent authority while recording the measurement of the land in question. Learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to page 39 of the compilation i.e. original entry made in the record in which land in question is shown as 10,843 sq. yards. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani has also referred to the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the City Survey Superintendent, the copy of which is placed on record at page 47 of the compilation, and it is submitted that the said order was passed by the authority under Section 37(2) of the Code. yards. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani has also referred to the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the City Survey Superintendent, the copy of which is placed on record at page 47 of the compilation, and it is submitted that the said order was passed by the authority under Section 37(2) of the Code. The land in question, whether it is 10,843 sq. yards or 17,843 sq. yards belonged to the government, was given to the petitioner-Trust on certain terms and conditions. It is submitted that the said order passed by the City Survey Superintendent has not been set aside by this Court when the petitioner filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 3476 of 2009. It is further submitted that civil suit filed by the petitioner is still pending before the concerned civil court wherein similar type of relief is prayed for and therefore this Court may not entertain this petition. It is, therefore, urged that no error is committed by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order and this petition be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it has emerged that dispute is with regard to the measurement of survey no. 608. It is the case of the respondent authority that the measurement of the said survey number is 10,843 sq. yards whereas as per the case of the petitioner, it is 17,843 sq. yards. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, challenged the order passed by the concerned authority by filing Special Civil Application No. 3476 of 2009 and this Court passed an order on 13.5.2009 which reads as under: "2. Upon notices having been issued, learned AGP appears, and states under the instructions of Shri Deepakbhai B. Pandya, City Survey Superintendent No. 3, Ahmedabad who is personally present in the Court, that an apparent error has occurred in maintenance of record and in the event the impugned orders are quashed and set aside, necessary steps for correcting the error shall be taken by the respondent-authority within maximum period of two months. 3. 3. Accordingly, without recording the facts and the respective contentions in detail, in light of the statement made by learned AGP, the impugned orders dated 30th March, 2009 made by the respondent no.-2-authority (Annexure-Z1) and 6th December, 2004 (Annexure-H) as well as the order dated 30th June, 2008 made by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-U) are hereby quashed and set aside restoring the matter to respondent no. 3, the Collector, Ahmedabad District for initiating appropriate action to rectify the error in accordance with law. Respondent-authorities shall ensure that the said exercise is carried out and completed within a period of 60 days from today." 8. It is also revealed that the respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 2234 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.2.2010 rejected the said Letters Patent Appeal. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench has observed and directed as under: "The matter at dispute is that area of the lands bearing City Survey No. 608 and no. 609A in occupation of the Trust. It is the claim of the Trust that while posting entry in the revenue record the respondent-authorities have committed mistake in computing the total area. According to the Trust the total area of the City Survey Nos. 608 and 609A in its occupation is 17,843 sq. yards whereas area entered in the revenue record I 10.843 sq. yards. We are of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met if the Ahmedabad District Collector carries out the rectification procedure as directed by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the relevant records. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this Appeal in limine. It is directed that the appellant no. 3 District Collector will carry out procedure for rectification of the Revenue record in respect of lands of City Survey No. 608 and 609A in occupation of the respondent-Victoria Jubilee Hospital Trust. While carrying rectification procedure the District Collector will take into consideration the relevant materials including the above referred applications Change Inquiry No. 672 and 673 of 1971 made by the Trust to the Charity Commissioner and also the judgment and order dated 31st January 1979 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in above referred Civil Misc. Application Nos. 282 and 283 of 1978. Application Nos. 282 and 283 of 1978. The rectification exercise will be completed by the appellant no. 3 as directed hereinabove within six months from today." 9. Though the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has specifically directed the respondent Collector to carry out the rectification procedure as directed by the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the relevant record, the respondent no. 2 vide the impugned order, dated 10.6.2010 once again rejected the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed the civil suit in the year 2010. However, when realized that the order of Collector can be challenged by filing revision application under Section 211 of the Code, the revision application was filed before SSRD. SSRD rejected the said revision application vide impugned order dated 31.5.2016 on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 10. It is also revealed from the record that in this petition, this Court has passed the interim order on 9.1.2018 which reads as under: "Considering the fact that the property is very old and as asserted by Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was already measured way back in the year 1922. In order to verify the totality of the facts and contentions which are raised in the petition, respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to get the property measured through the competent authority and place a report on record of this petition, on or before, 05th February, 2018. The petitioner shall cooperate with the respondent authority while carrying out the measurement. S.O. to 06th February, 2018." 11. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the present petition, the City Deputy Collector requested the City Survey Officers for measurement of the land in question pursuant to which the City Survey Officer measured the land in question i.e. the land bearing City Survey No. 608/1, 608/2 and 608/3 and composite measurement sheet has been prepared on 3.2.2018. The affidavit to that effect is filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and composite measurement sheet has been produced at page 127 of the compilation. If the composite measurement sheet is carefully seen, along with the explanation given in the said sheet, it is revealed that total area of city survey nos. 608/1, 608/2 and 608/3 is 17,843 sq. yards. 12. 2 and composite measurement sheet has been produced at page 127 of the compilation. If the composite measurement sheet is carefully seen, along with the explanation given in the said sheet, it is revealed that total area of city survey nos. 608/1, 608/2 and 608/3 is 17,843 sq. yards. 12. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, when the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has specifically directed the respondent Collector to initiate the process of rectification of the error committed in the record, though it was not open for him to once again reject the request of the petitioner, the request of the petitioner was rejected. Even the SSRD has, without properly appreciating the material placed before him, rejected the request of the petitioner mainly on the ground of delay in filing revision application. According to this Court, it was not open for the respondent authorities to once again consider the issue that the land in question is admeasuring 10,843 sq. yards and not 17,843 sq. yards. They were required to rectify the mistake committed in the record only. However now, once again the measurement of the land in question is carried out by the competent authority and the measurement sheet is produced on record and it is clear that the total area of the land in question is 17,843 sq. yards. 13. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the City Survey Superintendent was taken into revision by the Collector. The Collector set aside the said order passed by the City Survey Superintendent vide order dated 30.6.2008. Against the said order, the revision was filed by the petitioner before SSRD. SSRD rejected the said revision application vide order dated 30.3.2009 as submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the orders passed by the respondents authorities by filing Special Civil Application No. 3476 of 2009. This Court vide order dated 13.5.2009 set aside the order dated 30.3.2009 passed by the SSRD and the order dated 30.6.2008 passed by the Collector and direction was given to the Collector to rectify the error in accordance with law. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the orders passed by the respondents authorities by filing Special Civil Application No. 3476 of 2009. This Court vide order dated 13.5.2009 set aside the order dated 30.3.2009 passed by the SSRD and the order dated 30.6.2008 passed by the Collector and direction was given to the Collector to rectify the error in accordance with law. When the State preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the said appeal was dismissed and direction was given to the Collector to carry out the procedure for rectification of the revenue record in respect of the land in question. The said order has attained finality. 14. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Collector passed an order dated 10.6.2010, copy of the said order is placed on record at page 25. If the said order is carefully examined, it is revealed that the Collector has observed that the land admeasuring 7000 sq. mtrs is not of the ownership of the petitioner and therefore the said land is considered to be of the ownership of the government and the City Survey Superintendent was directed to prepare the PR card for the said portion of the land in question wherein the government be shown as occupant. The said order has been confirmed by the respondent-SSRD vide order dated 31.5.2016. It is observed in the said order that the petitioner has failed to establish its right over the land admeasuring 7000 sq. yards However, SSRD ultimately rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay. Thus, from the aforesaid observations made by the Collector as well as SSRD, it is clear that the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the City Survey Superintendent upon which reliance is placed by learned Assistant Government Pleader is misconceived. The respondent-Collector as well as SSRD have considered 7000 sq. yards of the land is of the ownership of the government. It is not the case of the respondent-government even in the affidavit-in-reply or in the impugned orders passed by the Collector as well as SSRD that entire disputed land admeasuring 17,843 sq. yards is of the ownership of the government. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.5.2016 made by respondent no. yards is of the ownership of the government. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.5.2016 made by respondent no. 1 in Revision Application No. 3/2015 and the order dated 10.6.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 are quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 2 shall correct the mistake committed in the record by considering the total measurement of the land in question as 17,843 sq. yards. and the aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the respondent no. 2-Collector within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute.