ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following prayers: “(A) That your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12/02/2016 made by Respondent No. 6, the order dated 31/07/2010 made by the Respondent No. 1 and further the pleased to direct the authorities to restore Revenue Entry No. 8619 on the revenue record of land bearing Survey No.554; (B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to stay implementation, execution, operation and enforcement of the impugned orders dated 12/02/2016 made by Respondent No. 6 and the order dated 31/07/2010 made by the Respondent No. 1, and further the pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo as regards Revenue Entry No. 8619 till the final disposal of the petition; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further order as may be necessary in the interest of Justice;” 2. The deceased – Ratilal Maganlal Patel was the owner of several parcels of land. It appears that the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (“the Ceiling Act”) came into effect from 10.08.1960, being the date on which it was notified in the official Gazette. In view of Section 10 of the Ceiling Act, the holder had to furnish particulars of land to the Mamlatdar. The deceased petitioner had, therefore, furnished the details about the lands held by him as prescribed in Form No.2, provided under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Rules, 1961. 2.1 On furnishing the details, the case of the deceased was taken for declaring surplus land as provided under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act. The Mamlatdar vide order dated 13.11.1981, in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the Ceiling Act, declared that the deceased was entitled to hold land other than the Block No.554 paiki, admeasuring 3 Acre 26 Gunthas as on 01.04.1976. Thus, the aforesaid parcel of land bearing Block No.554 paiki was declared as surplus. On the basis of the aforesaid order, Mutation Entry No.2591 was entered on 05.05.1982. 2.2 By virtue of the order dated 26.02.1982 passed in Suo Motu Ceiling Case No. Review/Reg/17591, the Deputy Collector confirmed the aforesaid order passed by the Mamlatdar. Thus, the aforesaid parcel of land bearing Block No.554 paiki was declared as surplus. On the basis of the aforesaid order, Mutation Entry No.2591 was entered on 05.05.1982. 2.2 By virtue of the order dated 26.02.1982 passed in Suo Motu Ceiling Case No. Review/Reg/17591, the Deputy Collector confirmed the aforesaid order passed by the Mamlatdar. 2.3 The State of Gujarat challenged the above orders before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (“the GRT”) by way of Revision Application No. TEN/B.S/39 of 1983, which was allowed vide order dated 18.07.1983 and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector to consider the entire case afresh in accordance with law. 2.4 In the second round of litigation, the case was registered by the Deputy Collector as Ceiling / Revision / Remand / Section-37/ Case No.36 of 1988, wherein vide order dated 27.12.1988, he held that over and above the land bearing Block No.554 paiki, the parcel of land bearing Block No.399 paiki Survey Nos.414/1 and 414/2 was also held to be surplus land, and the Mamlatdar was accordingly directed to do the needful. 2.5 The aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Collector was challenged by the deceased petitioner before the GRT by filing Revision Application No.TEN/B.S/95 of 1989, which came to be allowed vide order dated 24.07.1992. Consequently, the order passed by the Deputy Collector was quashed and the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 13.11.1981 was confirmed. 2.6 Thereafter, the petitioner had passed away in the year 1996 and his widow has been settled in Fiji from the year 1974 to 1977 and then from 1984 to 1986. She, later on, shifted to USA since 1995. The son of the deceased had also settled in Fiji since 1974 and returned to India only in the year 1989. The daughter-in-law, after original litigant (petitioner No.1.3) also had been settled in USA alongwith her husband. The petitioner No.1.4 had also settled in Fiji from the year 1984 to 1988, in Australia from the year 1988 and 1994, in Fiji in the year 1995 and then permanently settled in USA in the year 2002. It is the case of the petitioners that in several cases, suo motu proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. It is the case of the petitioners that in several cases, suo motu proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. When petitioner No.1.2 came to know about the proceedings that the land bearing Survey No.445 was wrongly included in the holding of the deceased petitioner and, therefore, he had moved an application on 17.06.2008, which was received by the office of Deputy Collector, Bardoli Prant Office on 21.06.2008.. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Mamlatdar mutated Entry No.8619 on 26.06.2008 on the basis of the application referred to hereinabove after verification and rectifying the error, whereby Survey No.445 was wrongly added into the cluster. However, he has submitted that suo motu revision proceedings were initiated by the District Collector with respect to the mutation entry and a show-cause notice was issued with regard to Entry No.8619. Accordingly, after considering the submissions of the petitioner, the District Collector cancelled mutation Entry No.8619 by the order dated 31.07.2010 and directed the Mamlatdar to make a fresh inquiry pursuant to the earlier order dated 24.07.1992 passed by the GRT in Revision Application No.TEN/B.S/95 of 1989. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/ST/45/2010 before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, which came to be rejected vide order dated 30.10.2010. He has submitted that the petitioners had filed Review Application No.TEN/CS/5/2010 to review the order dated 24.07.1992 passed by the GRT in Revision Application No.TEN/B.S/95 of 1989 and also prayed for quashing the order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the District Collector, however, the GRT rejected the application vide order dated 08.02.2011. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that thereafter, the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.4189 of 2011, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2011. He has submitted that the petitioners filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1208 of 2011 against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2011 and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.12.2011 in view of the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.12382 of 2010 (The Bhagyodaya Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Natvarlal K. Patel & Ors.), on the ground that the appeal would not be maintainable. Natvarlal K. Patel & Ors.), on the ground that the appeal would not be maintainable. 3.3 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that thereafter, the petitioners preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4826 of 2012 against the aforesaid order, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2012. He has submitted that the petitioners filed Misc. Civil Application No.985 of 2012 to review the order dated 04.04.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.4189 of 2011. He has submitted that the petitioners made a precise averment as regards relief sought for in the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal in paragraph No.3 of the application. He has submitted that the petitioners also pointed out in paragraph No.5 of the application that they did not file the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed in Special Civil Application No.4189 of 2011 and, therefore, they contended that the order passed in the petition does not merge with the orders passed in the Letters Patent Appeal or the Special Leave to Appeal. He has submitted that the petitioners also contended in paragraph No.3 of the application that in view of aforesaid, the doctrine of merger would not apply and, therefore, the review application was maintainable. He has submitted that the petitioners pointed out that there were mistakes in calculation of holding of the deceased and, therefore, the error/mistake should be corrected, or appropriate order may be passed in that regard. The said application was turned down by the judgment and order dated 20.02.2015. He has submitted that the petitioners further challenged the aforesaid order by way of filing Letters Patent Appeal No.808 of 2015, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2015. The petitioners again filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20995 of 2015 before the Supreme Court which came to be rejected vide order dated 04.12.2015. 3.4 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has further submitted that in the interregnum, the revision application was posted for final hearing before the Secretary (Appeals) against the order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the District Collector and it is at the final hearing stage that revision application of the petitioners has been turned down and, therefore, they are constrained to prefer this petition. 3.4 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has further submitted that in the interregnum, the revision application was posted for final hearing before the Secretary (Appeals) against the order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the District Collector and it is at the final hearing stage that revision application of the petitioners has been turned down and, therefore, they are constrained to prefer this petition. 3.5 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that in fact it can be said that the typographical error or clerical error has been committed and holding of deceased Ratilal Maganlal Patel is calculated sans Survey No.445, which would cluster in the ceiling limit. With regard to the earlier litigation is concerned, learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has submitted that the error committed by the revenue authority was brought on record in Letters Patent Appeal No.808 of 2015 and no particulars in the affidavit was filed by the revenue authority. 3.6 It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty that Survey No.445 did not belong to the owner of the land and, therefore, it was perfectly justified to exclude such holding from the cluster of holding of the owner. The land bearing Survey No.445 was wrongly added into the cluster, which was held by the original owner and by the order dated 13.11.1981 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Ceiling Case No.1931 of 1980, he had inadvertently added Acre 4-00 Gunthas from Survey No.445 paiki in the cluster of land held by the holder. 3.7 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty has further submitted that the petitioners or their ancestors had nothing to do with the land bearing survey No.445 and due to the typographical error, it was learnt by the petitioners, more particularly petitioner No.1.2 in the year 2008 itself and immediately, an appropriate application was made, which was acted upon in due process of law. Thus, neither the respondent No.1 nor the respondent No.6 was justified in cancelling Entry No.8619 without application of mind. 4. I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. 5. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the earlier rounds of litigations, which are filed by the petitioners. 6. Thus, neither the respondent No.1 nor the respondent No.6 was justified in cancelling Entry No.8619 without application of mind. 4. I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. 5. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the earlier rounds of litigations, which are filed by the petitioners. 6. The petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.4189 of 2011 before this Court challenging the order passed by the GRT dated 08.02.2011 passed in Review Application No.TEN/CS/5 of 2010 as well as the order passed by the GRT dated 24.07.1992 passed in Revision Application No.TEN/B.S/95 of 1989 as well as the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Kamrej (Ceiling) dated 13.11.1981 passed in Ceiling Case No.1931 of 1980. 7. The subject matter of the original survey numbers were considered by this Court and ultimately, the petition being Special Civil Application No.4189 of 2011 was dismissed by the order dated 04.04.2011. 8. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners filed a Review Application being Misc. Civil Application No.985 of 2012 in Special Civil Application No.4189 of 2011, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.02.2015. In the meantime, there were various proceedings which reached upto the Supreme Court, as mentioned in the said order. Thus, this Court in the judgment dated 20.02.2015 has recorded such proceedings, which are reproduced as under: “2.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (Ceiling), Kamrej (hereinafter referred to as “the Mamlatdar and ALT” for short) declaring Block No.554 paiki 7 Acres and 26 Gunthas and land bearing Block No.339 paiki Revenue Survey Nos.414/1 and 414/2, area admeasuring 4 Acres and 19Gunthas, respectively as excess under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for convenience) has been confirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2.01. It is required to be noted that the SLP against the judgment and order dated 28/12/2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1208/2011 as well as judgment and order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4189/2011 came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17/2/2012 and immediately thereafter present application has been preferred on 7/3/2012 to recall and review the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.4189/2011 dated 24/7/1992 and for the aforesaid reliefs. 3.00. 3.00. It is the case on behalf of the applicants that land bearing Block No.445 of village Kamrej admeasuring 4 Acres and 0 Gunthas under the holding of the applicants and land bearing Block No.445/1 paiki of village Kamrej area admeasuring 1 Acre and 39 Gunthas which were declared in the Form is not considered under the holding of the applicants. It is also the case on behalf of the applicants that land bearing Block No.445 and 455/1 are seasonal irrigated land. It is also the case on behalf of the applicants that by wrongly including the aforesaid land in the holding of the deceased Ratilal Maganlal Patel, the Mamlatdar and ALT considered the holding of the deceased Ratilal Maganlal Patel as 21 Acres and 12 Gunthas. It is, therefore, the case on behalf of the applicants that there is error in calculating the holdings of the deceased Ratilal Maganlal Patel and therefore, it is requested to direct the Mamlatdar and ALT to correct the error and/or mistake with regard to the description of the land i.e. to correct the Survey Number and area of the land in question. It is also the case on behalf of the applicants that though Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4826 of 2012 preferred by the applicants against the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4189 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1208 of 2011 is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the principle of merger would not be applicable, because, as such the applicants have not challenged the orders on merits. It is also the case on behalf of the applicants that as the applicants filed the aforesaid SLP against order dated 24/7/1992 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4189 of 2011, the said order does not merge with the order dated 28/12/2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1208/2011 and with the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4826 of 2012. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present application and grant the reliefs as prayed for. No other submissions have been made. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 5.1.3. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present application and grant the reliefs as prayed for. No other submissions have been made. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 5.1.3. It is required to be noted that against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.4189 of 2011 dismissing the same, the applicants preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1208 of 2011 and the same came to be dismissed by the Division Bench, as not maintainable. Against the order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1208 of 2011, the applicants preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4826 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. From the order dated 17/2/2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the aforesaid SLP (C) No.4826 of 2012 it is clear that the applicant did challenge the order passed by this Court in SCA No.4189/2011 also. 5.02. Be that it may, the contentions which are now raised in the present application, were in fact raised before the GRT as well as this Court while deciding Special Civil Application No.4189 of 2011 and the same came to be considered by this Court in detail. Under the circumstances, as such there is no error apparent on the face of the record and hence review jurisdiction is not required to be exercised. Though there is no error apparent on the face of the record, only with a view to delay the handing over the possession of the excess vacant land, which has been declared excess under the provisions of the Act way back in the year 1981/1992, present application has been preferred. There must be an end to every litigation. The applicants are as such successful in delaying the handing over the possession of the excess vacant land declared excess under the provisions of the Act way back in the year 1981/1992 by initiating one proceeding or the other.” Thus, the review application was dismissed. 9. The petitioner challenged the same by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.808 of 2015. By the order dated 16.07.2015, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal by observing thus: “6. 9. The petitioner challenged the same by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.808 of 2015. By the order dated 16.07.2015, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal by observing thus: “6. When the calculation was made by the first authority i.e. Mamlatdar and ALT and if there was mistake on the part of the Mamlatdar and ALT in calculation for the purpose of declaration of the land as surplus land, such mistake could have been brought to the notice of the first appellate authority by the appellant. If it was missed by the appellate Authority at the first appellate stage, then, it could also be agitated in the revisional proceedings before the Tribunal and thereafter before the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition and subsequent litigation. Not only that, after the land was declared as surplus land, there were revenue mutations. At the relevant point of time also, the appellant had opportunity to bring it to the notice of the authority that there was mistake in calculation, if any. No such attempt as per the appellant was made, since as per the appellant, such did not strike to him or that it was missed bona fide. 7. In our view, taking the situation in either way, at the most, it can be said that a contention, which ought to have been taken in appeal or in revision or in writ jurisdiction has not been taken and as per the principles of constructive res judicata, the contention, which ought to have been taken and if not taken is deemed to have been concluded. It is hardly required to be stated that the principles of constructive res judicata are read in order to give sanctity to the decision of the competent forum or the Court, as the case may be. 8. The party, after the decision is over and carried up to the highest Court of the land, cannot be heard to say that something was missed, may be by mistake or otherwise and it be considered again. If the contention of the appellant is considered and entertained, it would run counter to the settled principles of constructive res judicata. In our view, the learned Single Judge has also found that the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the contention and we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. If the contention of the appellant is considered and entertained, it would run counter to the settled principles of constructive res judicata. In our view, the learned Single Judge has also found that the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the contention and we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find that any case is made out for interference. Hence, the appeal is merit less and, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.” 10. The Division Bench as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners about the calculation made by the first authority, i.e., Mamlatdar and ALT with regard to declaration of the land as surplus land. The Division Bench, after considering all the submissions advanced by the present petitioners dismissed the appeal. The petitioners, thereafter, challenged the same before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20995 of 2015 and the same was also dismissed by the order dated 04.12.2015. 12. The conspectus of the aforesaid proceedings would show that the petitioners had challenged the original order passed by the Mamlatdar hereinabove dated 13.11.1981 on the similar grounds, which are raised in the present petition. The Coordinate Bench of this Court with regard to the Survey No.445, on which the present petition is premised, has considered the submissions raised by the petitioners. This Court in the aforenoted proceedings has threadbare examined all the issues with regard to all the survey numbers. The petitioners have miserably failed in establishing their case. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the action in piecemeal manner, when in earlier round of litigation, similar issue has been decided by this Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court with regard to the lands in question being Survey Nos.445 and 554. 13. In this view of the matter, the present petition is rejected.