ORDER : 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Learned Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department – respondent no.1 in Appeal No. MVV/GNT/GDHN/06 of 2019 whereby while rejecting the revision application preferred by the applicant of that application who is the respondent no.3 herein, the Learned Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department – respondent no.1 herein quashed and set aside the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in Tenancy Case No. 32/(P)/2-C/01 of 2019 and thereafter, directed that the proceedings under section 32 P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act be carried out denovo, after giving wide publicity to the said proceedings and after examining the record as per the existing rules, regulation and policy of the Government and thereby, remanded back to the case of the Mamlatdar and ALT Gandhinagar. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petitioners have challenged the same, by way of the present petition. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that there is a land bearing survey no. 945/2a+3a+4a paiki admeasuring 7790 sq. mtrs. situated at village: Uvarsad, Taluka and District:- Gandhinagar. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was cultivated by the ancestor of the petitioners namely Suraji Savaji in capacity of the tenant and therefore, he was declared as permanent tenant by Mamlatdar vide order dated 27.11.1947 and mutation entry no.3207 dated 20.04.1948 was mutated in the name of ancestor of the petitioners. However, thereafter, the proceedings under section 32 G of the Tenancy Act were initiated and the ancestor of the petitioners was asked as to whether he was desirous of purchasing the land in question. According to the petitioners, as the ancestor of the petitioners Suraji Savaji has expired in the year 1960, whereas the proceedings took place thereafter, and therefore, the proceedings were conducted against the dead person and entry no. 5579 dated 15.03.1967 was mutated. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 32 G were conducted and Tenancy Case No. 1808 of 1998 which was decided on 17.02.1988. However, the aforesaid order is not annexed along with this petition but reference of the same can be seen from the revenue entry which is at page no. 46 of the petition. 5579 dated 15.03.1967 was mutated. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 32 G were conducted and Tenancy Case No. 1808 of 1998 which was decided on 17.02.1988. However, the aforesaid order is not annexed along with this petition but reference of the same can be seen from the revenue entry which is at page no. 46 of the petition. Thereafter, the possession of the land was taken over by the State Government under Section 32 P (4) of the Tenancy Act and entry no. 7984 dated 29.02.1988 was mutated. It is the case of the petitioner that after the government took over the possession, the land was to be disposed of under the provision of section 32P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act. However, the said proceedings were initiated belatedly in the year 2013 and therefore, once again the possession was taken over from the petitioner under section 32 (P) (4) of the Tenancy Act. Vide order dated 08.10.2013 passed in Mam/Ganot/V.1056 of 2013. Learned Mamlatdar and ALT directed to take over the possession of the land in question and accordingly on 30.10.2013, panchnama was drawn and the possession of land in question was taken over. 3. Thereafter, proceedings under section 32P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act were contemplated under Rule 21 (1) of the Act on 28.01.2014 and Mamlatdar fixed the purchase price of land in question at Rs.1162/-, the petitioner being the legal heirs of deceased Suraji Savaji who claimed to be original tenant had applied for such grant of the land in question on 11.02.2014 and after a period of 5 years, the Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 16.01.2019 has allotted the land in question to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner paid the purchase price which was fixed by the Mamlatdar at Rs.1162/- and the land in question was allotted to the petitioner for cultivation under restrictions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Thereafter, the aforesaid proceedings were taken into Suomoto review and upon satisfaction that after due process of law, the Deputy Collector confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. 4. Thereafter, the aforesaid proceedings were taken into Suomoto review and upon satisfaction that after due process of law, the Deputy Collector confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, the respondent no.3 herein who claims to be the original owner of the land in question challenged the aforesaid order before the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department by way of preferring the Appeal No. MVV/GNT/ GDHN/06 of 2019 and in that proceedings after hearing of both the sides, learned Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2020 whereby the application preferred by the respondent no.3 was rejected and even the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in Tenancy Case No. 32 Tenancy Case No. 32/(P)/2-C/01 of 2019 was quashed and set aside the order and the matter was remanded back for carrying out the exercise denovo. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) is a strange order as while dismissing the revision application preferred by the present respondent no.3, the learned Secretary has also quashed and set aside the order dated 16.01.2019 passed in favour of the present petitioners and thereby while dismissing the revision application on paper virtually he has allowed the revision application preferred by respondent no.3 by remanding the matter back to the Mamlatdar and directed him to carry out the proceedings under Section 32 (P) (C) of the Tenancy Act denovo. 6. According to learned advocate Mr. Purohit, the Secretary – respondent no. 1 could not have passed such an order for the reasons that present respondent no. 3 who is the applicant in Appeal No. MVV/GNT/GDHN/06 of 2019 does not have any locus to prefer the aforesaid application. He submitted that the Deputy Collector confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in the suo moto review and observed that there are no procedural lapse in allotting the land to the present petitioners. According to learned advocate Mr. Purohit, as per the list of the priority under the provision of Section 32P (2) (C), the petitioner being the tenant comes on no.1 of the priority list and therefore, the land has rightly been allotted to him. According to learned advocate Mr. Purohit, as per the list of the priority under the provision of Section 32P (2) (C), the petitioner being the tenant comes on no.1 of the priority list and therefore, the land has rightly been allotted to him. Therefore, the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department is bad and contrary to the provision of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. No other submissions are made by the learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit. 7. As against that learned AGP Mr. Jainil Parikh for the respondents - State submitted that the order under challenged by way of the present petition is absolutely just, proper and legal order. Mr Parikh drew the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department while passing the impugned order dated 25.08.2020 and submitted that while allotting the land in question to the present petitioners under Section 32 P of the Tenancy Act, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinaar had committed glaring irregularities as it can be seen from the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department. He drew the attention of this Court to the observations made in the impugned order wherein the Secretary (Appeals) has while rejecting the application preferred by the respondent no.3 and while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar dated 16.01.2019 has categorically observed that the panchrojkam of the land in question at the time of taking over the possession on 30.10.2013 was carried out in the presence of two panchas namely Vinodbhai Shivabhai Patel and Ketan Jayantibhai Patel. The aforesaid two persons were also the panchas at the time when the notice was published by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Uvarsad dated 09.01.2019 as per the Rule 21 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy Rules, 1956, it was observed on both the occasions that meaning thereby at the time when the possession of the land in question was taken over as well as the notice was published, the same was done in the presence of the aforesaid two panchas only. Uvarsad Village having a considerable large population, some other persons also could have acted as panchas but deliberately the aforesaid two panchas were kept present just to ensure that the fact about the publication of the notice as well as taking over the possession of the land by the government is not brought to the knowledge of people at large. Thereafter, even in the proceedings pending before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in that proceedings also though Vinodbhai Shivabhai Patel has nothing to do with the aforesaid proceedings, his presence was recorded and in the proceedings of 08.09.2016 alongwith signature of Thakor Amrataji Mafaji and signature of Vinod Shivabhai Patel was also there. It does not surfaces from the record as in which capacity the said Vinod Shivabhai Patel was present in that proceedings, the presence of Vinodbhai Patel at the time of taking over the possession as panch, at the time when the notice under Rule 21 (1) was published also as panch and though he has not even remotely connected with the aforesaid proceedings, yet, he was present in the proceedings of 08.09.2016 and even put up his signature also in the proceedings raises suspicion about the manner in which the proceedings under Section 32P (2) (C) were conducted. 8. The learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department also observed the fact that pursuant to the notice dated 09.01.2014 issued by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Uvarsad for disposal of the land only one application was received and that was made by the present petitioners. As per the procedure, the notice ought to have been published in such a manner that it make at wide publicity and more and more people can know about publication of such notice. However, for some extraneous reasons as it transpires from the record the notice was not published in a manner in which it was required to be published and hence, there was no wide publicity of the aforesaid notice. Considering the fact that land in question is situated in Village: Uvarsad, District:- Gandhinagar and market price of the land as of now runs into crores of rupees is sought to be allotted to the present petitioners at a through away price at Rs.1162/- and considering the fact that land is admeasuring 7790 sq. Considering the fact that land in question is situated in Village: Uvarsad, District:- Gandhinagar and market price of the land as of now runs into crores of rupees is sought to be allotted to the present petitioners at a through away price at Rs.1162/- and considering the fact that land is admeasuring 7790 sq. mtrs which is a big portion of land, as per the order passed by Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, it cannot be believed that such a land having such a prime location could not generate interest in people at large for purchasing it and therefore, as only one application from the present petitioner’s was received, the land was allotted to the present petitioners and no other persons applied for the aforesaid land cannot be believed. On the basis of the aforesaid observations made by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, learned AGP Submitted that the land in question is a big piece of land situated in an area where the price of the land runs into the crores of rupees and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and considering the manner in which the proceedings under Section 32 P (2) (C) were carried out, the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department has rightly passed the impugned order with a view to ensure that land is disposed of in most transparent manner and it also protect the interest of the Government as well as of the public Exchequer. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 9. Considering the rival submissions and considering the documents on record, the fact emerges is that though the petitioner claims to be tenant of the land in question at the relevant point of time, ancestor of the present petitioner did not purchase the land, despite the fact that the land was offered to him. However, the aforesaid fact is disputed by the learned advocate Mr. Purohit by submitting that at the time when the land was alleged to have offered to ancestor of the present petitioner the Suraji Savaji Thakore had already expired and therefore, there was no occasions that the land was offered to him and that he refused to purchase the land. However, the fact remains that proceedings under section 32 (G) of the Tenancy Act took place and were not carried further and become final. However, the fact remains that proceedings under section 32 (G) of the Tenancy Act took place and were not carried further and become final. It is also undisputed fact that thereafter the possession of the land in question was taken over by the government and procedure for disposal of the land in question was under taken by the government and therefore, once the petitioner has participated in that proceedings which are undertaken under section 32 P (2) (C) of the Act for disposal of the land. It is of not much significance to refer to the past orders or whether the proceedings under section 32 G carried out against the petitioner were properly carried out or not? 10. What is important is that for disposal of the land procedural is prescribed under section 32 P of the Tenancy Act and therefore, atleast that procedure must be undertaken by the authority, in utmost transparent manner and to ensure that such proceedings are undertaken in a manner that maximum people interested in purchasing the aforesaid land are put to notice about the same. In the instant case, the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department has categorically observed that in entire proceedings right from drawing of the panchrojkoam during the pendency of the proceedings, there was a prsence of one Vinodbhai Patel who was panch, even at the time when the possession of the land was taken over, notice under Rule 21 (1) was published and also was present during the proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar. From the record, nothing comes out as in which capacity the said Vinodbhai Shivabhai Patel was present. Learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department has rightly raised suspicion about the fact in a village having considerable large population, why the authorities could find the same two persons to act as panchas, all throughout while carrying panchrojkam on various nature. The authority has also rightly raised doubt about the fact that when the land in question is situated just between in Ahmedabad and Gandhianagar in Uvarsad village and admeasuring 7790 sq. mtrs and market price of the land runs into crores of rupees, the said land was allotted to the present petitioners at through away price of Rs.1162/- only. The authority has also rightly raised doubt about the fact that when the land in question is situated just between in Ahmedabad and Gandhianagar in Uvarsad village and admeasuring 7790 sq. mtrs and market price of the land runs into crores of rupees, the said land was allotted to the present petitioners at through away price of Rs.1162/- only. What is shocking is that when such a big parcel of land is put up for disposal as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act and when a public notice for disposal of the aforesaid land was published by Talati-cum-Mantri, Uvarsad, it is surprising that only one person has shown interest in purchasing the aforesaid land, which indicates that the notice was not widely published and entire procedure was under taken in such a way that except for the petitioner no other persons can have any knowledge about the disposal of the aforesaid land as per the provisions of the Tenancy Act. 11. The learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department has rightly quashed the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in Tenancy Case No. 32/(P)/2-C/01 of 2019 with a view to ensure that the entire procedure is undertaken with utmost transparency and interest of government is protected. Therefore, when an order is passed in public interest also as to ensure the transparency in the procedure adopted by the authority, the said order cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, having complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department while passing the impugned order dated 25.08.2020 in Appeal No. MVV/GNT/GDHN/06 of 2019 and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The said is dismissed. No order as to cost.