ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 – Assistant Collector as well as the proceedings being Ceiling/Suo-motu/Revision/Case No.1/2018- Danta. [B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding that the action of the concerned respondents in reopening Case No.3/1976, after a period of 41 years, is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, illegal and liable to be set aside. [C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.5 Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TIN/AA/41/2020 ; [CC] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 15.9.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 as being without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, illegal and liable to be set aside. [D] Pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition writ petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further proceedings of case No. Ceiling / Suo-motu / Revision / Case No.1/2018-Danta pending before the respondent N.4 – Mamlatdar and further be pleased to stay the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 – Assistant Collector, Danta. [D] Pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition writ petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further proceedings of case No. Ceiling / Suo-motu / Revision / Case No.1/2018-Danta pending before the respondent N.4 – Mamlatdar and further be pleased to stay the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 – Assistant Collector, Danta. [E] Pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition writ petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.5 Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and direct stay of the proceedings before the respondent No.4 Mamlatdar-ALT in the proceedings which are subject matter of the present petition. [F] Pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition writ petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action in respect of the properties of the petitioner which is subject matter of the proceedings being Case No. Ceiling / Suo-motu / Revision / Case No.1/2018-Danta. [FF] Pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned petition writ petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the impugned notice dated 15.9.2021 and further proceedings initiated by the respondent No.4. [G] Ad-interim RELIEF IN TERMS OF PARA 13[D], [E] & [F] be granted by this Hon’ble Court;” 2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Shivam Dixit, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 3. Though a number of prayers are made by the petitioner, today when the matter is called out, at the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mehta submitted that his principal grievance is about the cryptic order rejecting application of the stay preferred by the petitioner passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TIN/AA/412020(Court-3+4) dated 19.3.2021 whereby while rejecting stay application of the petitioner, no reasons are assigned by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal nor arguments canvassed by the petitioner are considered and incorporated in the order and the authorities cited by the petitioner are also completely ignored by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and only three lines order is passed while rejecting the stay application of the petitioner. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta submitted that considering the fact that his revision application is pending before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal he has not pressed any other prayer, at this stage, except the prayer challenging the order dated 19.3.2021 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that just recently this Court vide order dated 26.11.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.15142 of 2021 has quashed the order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in similar set of facts wherein also while rejecting stay application preferred by the applicant of that petition, the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal did not assign any reasons, and therefore, order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 3.3 In view of the above, learned advocate Mr. Mehta states that this petition may also be disposed of with the same directions issued in judgment dated 26.11.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.15142 of 2021 as the facts of this petition are also identical. 4. Mr. Shivam Dixit, learned Assistant Government Pleader was provided with the copy of the order dated 26.11.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.15142 of 2021 and he could not dispute the facts stated by learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta. 5. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts as well as in view of the fact that in a similar set of facts, the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the Special Civil Application No.8272 of 2021 vide order dated 16.09.2021, was pleased to quash the unreasoned order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Birwati Chaudhary and Others vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2018) 9 SCC 458 . Paragraph no. 6 of the order dated 16.09.2021 in Special Civil Application No.8272 of 2021 which was observed as under:- “6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the order in question, it is self-explanatory that one line order dated 11.2.2021, communicated vide communication dated 16.2.2021, reflecting on page 47 is not sustainable since the reasons are part of compliance of principles of natural justice. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the order in question, it is self-explanatory that one line order dated 11.2.2021, communicated vide communication dated 16.2.2021, reflecting on page 47 is not sustainable since the reasons are part of compliance of principles of natural justice. Emphasize of the reasons in every exercise of discretion either it is administrative or quasi judicial or judicial is well-explained by catena of decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court and has emphasized that every order must be well supported by reasons and as such, on this count alone, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable. To arrive at this conclusion, the Court is well supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Birwati Chaudhary and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2018) 9 SCC 458 , in which since Hon’ble the Apex Court having found that interim order was not supported by reasons, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The relevant observations contained in para 6,7, 8 and 9 are quoted hereunder:- 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court to decide the ad-interim prayer made by the appellants (writ petitioners) afresh or/and consider disposing of the writ petition itself, as the case may be, in accordance with law. 7. The reason to remand the case has occasioned due to the fact that firstly, no adequate reason is given in the impugned order for not granting stay; and secondly, the reason given does not in itself justify the rejection having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition. 8. In short, justifiable reason(s) to support either the grant or rejection need(s) to be stated keeping in view the facts and the law applicable to the controversy involved. It is not so found in the impugned order and hence the order of remand is called for to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. It is not so found in the impugned order and hence the order of remand is called for to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court to decide the issue afresh on merits strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of our observations made above, which we have refrained to make having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above.” 6. Relying upon the order dated 16.9.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.8272 of 2021 this Court also had taken similar view and passed order dated 26.11.2021 in Special Civil Application No.15142 of 2021 on similar lines. 7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Mehta has made a request that this Court may stay the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, Danta. 9. The Court is also of the opinion that even if the authority is not inclined to grant interim relief during pendency of the main proceedings, then also, such exercise of jurisdiction deserves to be well supported by reasons. The same being completely missing in the case on hand, the order under challenge is not sustainable on that count alone. Considering the overall proposition of law, with broad concurrence, following order is passed which would meet the ends of justice:- [1] Impugned order dated 19.3.2021 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TIN/AA/412020(Court-3+4) is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondent No.1 is directed to re-hear the interim relief issue of the petitioner and after extending appropriate opportunity, a decision shall be taken afresh by assigning reasons. [2] The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal while considering the stay application may also take into consideration the prayer of the petitioner to stay the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, Danta and pass appropriate order in the interest of justice. [2] The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal while considering the stay application may also take into consideration the prayer of the petitioner to stay the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, Danta and pass appropriate order in the interest of justice. [3] The above exercise shall be completed within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of this order by the Tribunal and the parties are directed to cooperate with the Tribunal in taking fresh decision within the time stipulated. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. Notice discharged. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. Direct Service is permitted.