ORDER : 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs :“ 8(A) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the learned SSRD, respondent no. 1 herein in Revision Application No. 16 of 2019 as well as the order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the learned District Collector, Amreli, in Appeal Case No. 8 of 2017 and the order dated 19.09.1994 passed by the Deputy Collector, Muhva in Sharatbhang Case No. 11/199394. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the learned SSRD, respondent no. 1 herein in Revision Application No. 16 of 2019 as well as the order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the learned District Collector, Amreli, in Appeal Case No. 8 of 2017 and the order dated 19.09.1994 passed by the Deputy Collector, Muhva in Sharatbhang Case No. 11/199394. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to protect the possession of the petitioner over the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 424/1/P admeasuring Acres 80 Gunthas of Village Mota Zinzuda, Taluka Savarkundla, District Amreli and the respondent authorities may be restrained from disturbing the possession thereof. (D) To pass such other and further order/s as may be just and necessary in the circumstances o the case.” 2. During the course of hearing Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has specifically drawn attention of this Court to the first order which has been passed by the Deputy Collector which is without serving a copy of the notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing. During the course of hearing Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has specifically drawn attention of this Court to the first order which has been passed by the Deputy Collector which is without serving a copy of the notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing. Apart from that, the order of the Collector is also suffering from vice of non application of mind and in view of the fact that two specific instances have been given in an appeal before the Collector that the Deputy Collector has condoned the delay in several cases though the delay was of long days whereas, in the case of the petitioner, the authority has not considered the same though specific orders have been pointed out in the memo of appeal reflecting on page 80 and thereby has contended that the Collector while passing the impugned order has not dealt with the said aspect at all and, therefore, there is non consideration of a specific contention by the authority. It has further been contended that before the revisional proceedings in the order after narration of the observations of the order of the Collector, no independent application of mind is reflecting and, therefore, in some and substance, the challenge is frustrated only on the issue of delay. It has been contended that the delay should not defeat the right of the litigation, precisely in view of the fact that there are certain guidelines issued vide Resolution dated 04.07.2008 as well as 04.10.2016 whereby the authorities were under an obligation to convert the land into old tenure after a lapse of certain period. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further contended that in view of the fact that since the contentions which have been specifically raised before the Collector have not been dealt with at all, at least a fresh consideration deserves at the end of the Collector so that no injustice to be meted out to the petitioner. It is a settled law that while exercising the discretion, the authorities are under an obligation to deal with the contentions which are raised specifically, else, appropriate directions deserves by remanding matter for fresh consideration and as such, has requested the Court to remand the proceedings to the Collector so that fresh look can be given by the Collector in the larger interest. 3. To this submission, Mr. 3. To this submission, Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent authority on an advance copy, has submitted that it appears that the challenge has been made after almost a period of 23 years and as such the authority has rightly not exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Further Mr. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader candidly is not in a position to confront with the situation that though a specific contention has been raised before the authority, the authority has not dealt with the same and as such, has left it upon the discretion of the Court to pass appropriate order in the matter. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, prima facie it appears that there are specific instances given in writing in the memo of appeal to point out that in few cases, enormous delay is condoned by the very authority, but the same has not been dealt with at all in either way and as such it appears that the contentions which have been raised have not been considered by the authority. 4.1. Additionally, it also appears from the record and contended specifically that the present petitioner is in possession of the land in question since several years, and is physically cultivating the land as stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner and as such, if due consideration to his case is not given by the authority, serious prejudice is likely to cause and in that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to consider the request of the petitioner to remand the proceedings back to the Collector for fresh consideration and to pass suitable order in the interest of justice. 4.2. It further appears from the record that the order passed by the revisional authority namely the Special Secretary, (Appeals) Revenue Department has also not applied his independent mind and just after narrating the contents from the order of the Collector, by brief reason, the revision application is disposed of on account of delay. That being the position, the request deserves consideration. Hence, the present petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions. 4.3. That being the position, the request deserves consideration. Hence, the present petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions. 4.3. Additionally, the Court has also taken into consideration the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in a decision in the case of Kushuma Devi v. Sheopati Devi (Dead) & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 744 , whereby, if the contentions which have been raised specifically, if not dealt with, the appropriate course would be to remand the proceedings and as such, in a peculiar background of this fact, the Court is inclined to consider the request made by the petitioner for remanding the matter back to the authority. 5. The impugned order dated 14.06.2019 passed by respondent no. 1 as well as order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the District Collector, Amreli, are hereby quashed and set aside with a consequential direction that the respondent – District Collector, Amreli shall rehear the appeal being Appeal Case No. 8 of 2017 and shall pass a fresh order after dealing with the contentions which are raised in the appeal memo by the petitioner including contentions with regard to delay as well. 5.1. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit with regard to any of the contentions in the petition but this direction is issued only on account of the fact that a specific contentions and instances have not been dealt with by the Collector. Hence, it is independently left it open for the Collector to pass a fresh order strictly, in accordance with law, and this Court is not suggesting the manner and method of the order to be passed by the Collector, afresh. 5.2. However, it would be open for the petitioner to intimate the District Collector about the present order by placing on record the writ of this Court and as and when the same is presented by the petitioner, the District Collector, shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of accordingly.