JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. Since all the captioned three appeals arise from a common order passed by the learned Single Judge and the issues raised therein are also the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Letters Patent Appeal No.1397 of 2017 filed in the Special Civil Application No.11635 of 2013 is treated as the lead matter. 3. The Special Civil Application No.11635 of 2013 came to be filed by the legal heirs of one Jyotsnaben J. Raval, a resident of Changadh, Taluka & District Amreli with the following prayers:- “12(A) Be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application; (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 14/05/2013 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent no.1 rejecting the Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/AML/52/2010 and further be pleased to quash and set aside the Order dated 29/06/2010 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent no.2 viz No.CHI/JMN/2/ENTRY/REVISION in link case No.112 of 2009-10 in the facts circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice; (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 14/05/2013 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent no.1and the Order dated 29/06/2010 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent no.2 to meet with the ends of justice; (D) Any other relief/s as thought fit may kindly be granted.” 4. The dispute in the present litigation is with respect to a parcel of land bearing revenue survey no.140, admeasuring 04 Acres – 03 Gunthas situated at the Village – Changadh, Taluka & District Amreli. 5. It appears from the materials on record that one Ujiben was the sole owner of the entire subject land. Ujiben was a spinster. It is not in dispute that Ujiben passed away on 24.08.2000. A Will purported to have been executed by Ujiben dated 25.08.2000 has come on record. In the said Will, Ujiben bequeathed the entire parcel of land to two individuals. In what manner these two beneficiaries are related to Ujiben is not known. 6. Be that as it may, the beneficiaries on the strength of the Will thereafter executed three different sale-deeds in favour of the three appellants before us. In the said Will, Ujiben bequeathed the entire parcel of land to two individuals. In what manner these two beneficiaries are related to Ujiben is not known. 6. Be that as it may, the beneficiaries on the strength of the Will thereafter executed three different sale-deeds in favour of the three appellants before us. As regard the transactions of sale, the entries came to be mutated in the revenue record sometime in the year 2001. In the year 2008, it came to the notice of the Collector, Amreli that how could Ujiben have executed a Will one day after her death. Thus, the Collector found that the Will was concocted. The first thing that the Collector did was to take all the entries mutated in the revenue record in review and cancelled the same. The second thing which the Collector appears to have done is to forfeit the entire land with the Government. The Government did so keeping in mind that there are no legal heirs of Ujiben. 7. The aforesaid action on the part of the Collector led to the present litigation. The matter reached up to the S.S.R.D. i.e. Secretary (Appeals). 8. As all the appellants before us failed upto the Secretary (Appeals), they came before this High Court by filing three different writ-applications. All the three writ-applications were taken up for hearing analogously by a learned Single Judge of this Court and vide order dated 05.05.2017 thought fit to set aside the impugned order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) and remit the matter to the S.S.R.D. (Appeals) for reconsideration and fresh decision. Some of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in its impugned order read thus:- “6. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners against the proceedings instituted and conducted by the Collector is to the effect that though the petitioners herein had their different and district right in respect of the lands in question, which required that the authorities should have issued separate and individual notices to the concerned persons, the said procedure was not followed and that therefore, the proceedings before the Collector and consequently, before the tribunal are vitiated. 6.1 Second contention which is raised in initiation of the proceedings is on the ground of delay. It is claimed that the authority initiated proceedings after abnormal delay. 6.1 Second contention which is raised in initiation of the proceedings is on the ground of delay. It is claimed that the authority initiated proceedings after abnormal delay. 6.2 Third contention which is raised by the petitioners against the impugned orders is that the said authorities, i.e. the Collector and the Secretary (Appeals) have usurped and exercised jurisdiction which would ordinarily be exercised by and can be exercised by Civil Court inasmuch as the issues related to right, interest and title in land / property and dispute related to legality of the Will allegedly executed by one Ms. Ujiben are involved in these case and such issues could not have been decided by revenue authority. 7. Undisputedly, the said contentions are substantial contentions, however, the authorities appear to have ignored said contentions while passing the impugned orders. 8. At the time of hearing of the petition, learned AGP could not offer satisfactory reply or explanation with regard to the contention that the dispute related to Will could not have been considered and decided by the Collector and/or the tribunal. 9. In this context, it would not be out of place to note that in the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the Collector in penultimate paragraph before the operative order, the Collector has recorded observation and finding that the Will was created on 25.8.2000 whereas Ujiben died on 24.8.2000 and therefore, the Will was concocted. The said issue could not have been examined and decided and said finding or observation could not have been recorded by the Collector since such issue can be examined and decided only by learned Civil Court. It is also relevant and appropriate to mention that the Collector himself has recorded in the order that application for probate was already filed in the Civil Court. When such was the position, then, the authority should have restrained and refrained from making any observation or from recording any findings with regard to legality of the Will or right and title of the concerned parties in respect of the land in question. 10. Unfortunately, same error is repeated even by the Secretary in his order dated 14.5.2013 wherein the Secretary has recorded or rather reiterated similar observations to support his conclusion that the entires recorded on the strength of the Will could not have been recorded and therefore the entires deserved to be set aside. 11. 10. Unfortunately, same error is repeated even by the Secretary in his order dated 14.5.2013 wherein the Secretary has recorded or rather reiterated similar observations to support his conclusion that the entires recorded on the strength of the Will could not have been recorded and therefore the entires deserved to be set aside. 11. The said observations and findings recorded by the Collector as well as the Secretary in their respective orders have vitiated the orders. Besides this, since the issue with regard to other two contentions raised by the petitioners namely (a) alleged failure to issue individual notice and (b) delay have not been addressed by the authorities, the Court is of the view that the proceedings should be remanded for fresh decision. 12. During hearing of these petitions, Mr. Kanabar, learned advocate for the petitioners also raised a contention that while proceedings were instituted with reference to survey No.140, certain observations and directions have been made in the impugned orders with regard to another/unconnected survey number i.e. Survey No.97. 13. So far as said contention is concerned, the petitioners will have to address the said aspect before the concerned authority and will have to demonstrate that the said other survey number was not subject matter of notice and even otherwise also, the said survey number is not concerned or involved in the disputed transaction.” 9. The operative part of the order reads thus:- “14. For the said purpose, following order is passed:- [a] The order dated 14.5.2013 passed by the Secretary (Appeals) is set aside. [b] The case is remanded to the Secretary (Appeals) for reconsideration and fresh decision. [c] The authority shall pass fresh reasoned and speaking order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. [d] It is clarified that all contentions of both sides are kept open and the authority, having regard to the fact that the proceedings were initiated in 2009 and almost 8 years have passed since then, decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 3 months from receipt of certified copy of this order.” 10. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants – original writ-applicants are here before this Court with the present appeals. 11. Mr. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants – original writ-applicants are here before this Court with the present appeals. 11. Mr. Kanabar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in two of the appeals vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in remitting the matter to the S.S.R.D. for fresh consideration. According to Mr. Kanabar, there is nothing wrong if the matter is remitted for fresh consideration provided the learned Single Judge is of the view that there is no sufficient materials on record to take an appropriate decision one way or the other. However, according to Mr. Kanabar, the learned Single Judge ought not to have remitted the matter because the entire proceedings from day one were without jurisdiction. According to Mr. Kanabar, the Collector could not have questioned the legality and validity of the Will. It is submitted that the Collector could not have taken cognizance of the fact that as Ujiben passed away on 24.08.2000, she could not have executed the Will dated 25.08.2000. Mr. Kanabar further submitted that assuming for the moment that the Will is under a cloud, still the suo-motu action, which came to be taken almost after a period of 08 years, is not tenable in law. He would submit that it is only a competent Civil Court who could have said something as regards the genuineness of the Will. Mr. Kanabar submitted that if the learned Single Judge thought fit to remit the matter, then the matter should have been remitted to the Collector and not to the S.S.R.D. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Kanabar prays that there being merit in his appeals, those may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 12. On the other hand, all the three appeals have been vehemently opposed by Mr. Ishan Joshi, the learned AGP appearing for the State. Mr. Joshi would submit that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. Mr. Joshi would submit that all that the learned Single Judge has done, is to remit the matter to the S.S.R.D. for fresh consideration. Mr. Joshi would submit that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. Mr. Joshi would submit that all that the learned Single Judge has done, is to remit the matter to the S.S.R.D. for fresh consideration. He would submit that no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the appellants, who are the purchasers of the land in question. 13. Mr. Joshi would submit that once it comes to the notice of the Collector that the Will itself is doubtful, as it is very apparent that Ujiben died on 24.08.2000 and the date on the Will is shown to be 25.08.2000, the Collector was justified in taking the revenue entries in suo-motu review. As Ujiben died without any legal heirs, the Collector rightly forfeited the entire land. He would submit that if the three appellants claim to be the true and lawful owners of the land in question by virtue of the Will purported to have been executed by Late Ujiben, then they should go and file Civil Suits and seek appropriate declaration in that regard from a competent Civil Court. 14. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Joshi prays that there being no merit in all the three appeals, those may be dismissed. 15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in passing the impugned order. 16. Having regard to the facts narrated above and also having regard to what has been observed by the learned Single Judge in its impugned order, we are of the view that we should not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the present appeals. It is difficult for us to take the view that the proceedings right from day one could be said to be without jurisdiction. We do not want to observe anything further as the learned Single Judge has thought fit to remit the matter for reconsideration and fresh decision. When the matter is taken up for reconsideration, it is for the appellants herein to point out all the relevant aspects of the matter before the authority concerned. We do not want to observe anything further as the learned Single Judge has thought fit to remit the matter for reconsideration and fresh decision. When the matter is taken up for reconsideration, it is for the appellants herein to point out all the relevant aspects of the matter before the authority concerned. We leave all questions of law open to be canvassed before the S.S.R.D., in the proceedings, which the S.S.R.D. shall now undertake pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. With the aforesaid, all the three appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Ad-interim relief earlier granted stands vacated forthwith. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS:- All Civil Applications also stand disposed of. Ad-interim relief earlier granted stands vacated forthwith.