JUDGMENT : (Ashutosh J. Shastri, J.) 1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal the appellants - original petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of an oral order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16881 of 2020. 2. The background of facts in brief is that the appellants - original petitioners are the legal heirs of Suraji Savaji (tenant) had applied for grant of land on 11.02.2014. The subject land in question bearing Survey No.945/2a+3a+4a paiki, admeasuring 7790 sq.mtrs., situated at Village : Uvarsad, Taluka & District : Gandhinagar. The said land in question was cultivated by the Suraji Savaji i.e. ancestor of the original petitioners in the capacity as a tenant and as such was declared as permanent tenant by virtue of order of Mamlatdar dated 27.11.1947 and accordingly, the mutation entry was also incorporated in the revenue record on 20.04.1948 being Entry No.3207. Under the provisions of Section 32 G of Tenancy Act, said Suraji Savaji i.e. ancestor of the original petitioners being the tenant was called upon whether he is desirous of purchasing the land in question or not but said Suraji Savaji had expired in the year 1960 and legal heirs were not issued with a notice and therefore, the purchase remained in effective possession resultantly an Entry No.5579 on 15.03.1967 came to be made. Subsequently, a Ganot case was registered bearing Ganot Case No.1808/88 and by virtue of order dated 17.02.1988, the land came to be taken over by State Government by virtue of provisions contained under Section 32 P of Tenancy Act and entry to that effect has also been mutated being Entry No.7984 dated 29.02.1988. Subsequently, a Ganot case was registered bearing Ganot Case No.1808/88 and by virtue of order dated 17.02.1988, the land came to be taken over by State Government by virtue of provisions contained under Section 32 P of Tenancy Act and entry to that effect has also been mutated being Entry No.7984 dated 29.02.1988. 2.1 According to the original petitioners after taking over possession, the same has to be disposed of by virtue of provisions contained under Section 32 P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act but it appears that said process had not been undertaken by the State Government and as such appellants - original petitioners being the legal heirs of Suraji Savaji since cultivating the land in question till 2013, hence once again, the proceedings to take over possession under Section 32 P (4) of Tenancy Act came to be initiated wherein the learned Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 08.10.2013 directed to take over the possession of land in question and possession came to be taken from the appellants to which effect, a panchnama has also been drawn on 30.10.2013. 2.2 It is the say of the appellants that Mamlatdar and ALT has initiated proceedings to dispose of the land by virtue of provisions contained under Section 32 P (2) (C) of Tenancy Act and issued a public notice as required under Rule 21(1) of the Tenancy Act on 28.01.2014. The purchase price was pre fixed and same was fixed at Rs.1162/-. The Notice came to be published and the panchnama has also been executed with respect to such publication on 28.01.2014. The original petitioners being legal heirs and representatives of deceased Suraji Savaji, the original tenant, has as such applied for grant of land vide application dated 11.02.2014. 2.3 It is further the case of appellants that after a period of five years, the appellants being the legal heirs of original tenant Suraji Savaji comes in the top of priority list in consonance with Section 32 P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act and as such vide order dated 16.01.2019 the learned and ALT has allotted the land to the original petitioners and the purchase price which was fixed of Rs.1162/- has also been paid by the original petitioners and land has been allotted for cultivation to the original petitioners with restriction stipulated under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Entry to this effect has also been mutated being Mutation Entry No.16649 on 29.05.2019 but according to original petitioners, then suddenly having realized such situation the superior authority i.e. learned Deputy Collector has taken the said order of Mamlatdar and ALT in suo moto review and upon satisfaction, the order dated 16.01.2019 is confirmed and consequential effect is also not disturbed. 2.4 It is further the case of the original petitioners that respondent No.3 claiming to be the legal heir of the original land owner had challenged the order of the Mamlatdar dated 16.01.2019 before the learned Special Secretary Revenue Department by way of revision No. MVV/GNT/GDHN/06 of 2019. The thrust of the contention of the said revision was that before passing the impugned order the Mamlatdar and ALT has not extended any opportunity of hearing since the objectors were the legal heirs of original landlord. After hearing both the sides the learned SSRD was pleased to reject the appeal filed by respondent No.3 on 25.08.2020 and simultaneously, the order passed by Mamlatdar dated 16.01.2019 also came to be quashed and set aside and consequently respondent No.1 has remanded the matter back for undertaking the entire process under Section 32 P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act afresh and it is this order dated 25.08.2020 was challenged in the petition filed by present appellants. 2.5 The learned Single Judge, after hearing at length, vide oral order dated 01.12.2021 did not entertain the petition and by a reasoned order the petition came to be dismissed and it is this order of dismissal of petition which is made the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 3. Mr. Vimal A. Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that a close perusal of the provisions contained under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act would clearly indicate that allotment which was made in favour of the appellants was just and proper and same ought not to have disturbed in any manner having done so without interpreting relevant provisions in its proper perspective, an error is committed by learned Single Judge which requires to be corrected. It has been submitted that at relevant point of time, the ancestor deceased Suraji Savaji was declared as a permanent tenant by virtue of specific order dated 27.11.1947, which has also been given effect in the revenue entries and the said aspect was not in dispute and it is only because of the fact that Suraji Savaji had expired in 1960 the proceedings could not be concluded of the purchase as contemplated under Section 32 G of the Tencancy Act and as such said purchase has remained in effective pursuant to which, an entry came to be mutated on 15.03.1967 being Entry No.5579 and in between after taking over the land under the head of Government, a fresh process was undertaken in which the appellants have made an application for grant of land on 11.02.2014 and same has been considered in accordance with law on 16.01.2019 and in fact the purchase price was paid and hence, there was no just and proper reason to unsettle such allotment which has taken place in favour of the appellants. The impugned order passed by SSRD dated 25.08.2020 as such was not sustainable in the eye of law which aspect has not been considered in its proper prospective by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the error which has been crept in deserves to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the same. 3.1 According to Mr. Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the fact that purchase price having been pre fixed has been bona fidely paid by the appellants and therefore there is hardly any earthly reason for unsettling the allotment which had already been made in favour of the original petitioners and therefore order passed by the revisional authority which was not in consonance with the scheme of the Tenancy Act prescribed under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act ought to have been set aside. Hence, he contends that such serious error having not been noticed by the learned Single Judge, impugned order deserves to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 3.2 Mr. Hence, he contends that such serious error having not been noticed by the learned Single Judge, impugned order deserves to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 3.2 Mr. Purohit, learned advocate has further submitted that over the passage of time, if the price rise has raised to a substantial rate, same may not be a ground for unsettling the allotment, which has taken place in favour of the appellants and therefore, question of undertaking a fresh process is not fulfilling the test of scheme of the Act and therefore, learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in giving undue weightage to such circumstance and on this ground also, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 3.3 Mr. Purohit, learned advocate has further contended that even otherwise the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not supported by cogent reasons and as such order deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. No other submissions has been made. 4. As against aforesaid contention, Mr. K. M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State while supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge has vehemently contended that a serious attempt has been made to divert the land to the appellants at a throwaway price. Undisputedly, the appellants being the legal heirs of original tenant, had no vested right, since the purchase proposal which had been given to the deceased Suraji Savaji way back in the year 1960 which had not crystalised and the offer made by the State has not been accepted and contract was not concluded. Undisputedly, the appellants being the legal heirs of original tenant, had no vested right, since the purchase proposal which had been given to the deceased Suraji Savaji way back in the year 1960 which had not crystalised and the offer made by the State has not been accepted and contract was not concluded. Had it been the desire of Suraji Savaji to conclude the contract, the purchase would have been effected, but same had remained ineffective for which there is a specific entry made in the revenue record by Entry No.5579 dated 15.03.1967 and as such the land was rightly taken over by the State authority under Section 32 P (4) of the Tenancy Act and for that reason also, way back in the year 1988, the entry also came to be mutated by Entry No.7984 dated 29.02.1988 and as such considering the overall circumstances which are reflecting not only from the order dated 25.08.2020 but also from the oral order of learned Single Judge dated 01.12.2021 no case appears to have been made out and no error appears to have been committed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. He would contend that learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has given elaborate reasons as to why the writ applicants have not made out any case and therefore, in the absence of any error being committed by the learned Single Judge, Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained and while substantiating his submission the learned Assistant Government Pleader has not only drawn the attention to the impugned original order dated 25.08.2020 but also to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the oral impugned order dated 01.12.2021 and thereby he has prayed for dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it appears that while dismissing the petition the learned Single Judge has given elaborate reasons and has extensively considered the factual background which is in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act and as such the order passed after considering all the relevant material and submissions, we find no error having been committed by the learned Single Judge nor said order would reflect any perversity or material irregularity which may permit us to substitute said finding. 6. 6. We notice from the chronology of events that appellants - original petitioners have not made out any case to justify their stand and to challenge the original order of remand passed by the learned SSRD. Perusal of the impugned original order discloses that to undertake a fresh exercise of process in consonance with Section 32 P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act after broadly publishing and informing all the respective legal heirs and after hearing all the parties and to make a close scrutiny of relevant record as well as circulars and the prevailing policy of such allotment order of remand came to be passed. Hence, basically an order of remand was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. It is settled position of law that normally against an order of remand extraordinary jurisdiction would not be exercised particularly when a balance is struck by the learned SSRD while passing the order dated 25.08.2020 and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition by observing the relevant circumstances which are related to the controversy. 7. From the reading of the order of learned Single Judge's order, we find that land situated at Village : Uvarsad, which is between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar is admeasuring 7790 sq. mtrs. which came to be disposed of at a throwaway price of Rs.1160/- though the value of the land runs into crores of rupees. Apart from that, what has been ordered by the authority below was also justifiably considered by the learned Single Judge that a fresh process in transparent manner deserves to be undertaken and as such we see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. While coming to this conclusion, we are also of the view that in the absence of any perversity or material irregularity sitting in an appellate jurisdiction the finding so recorded would not be substituted under normal circumstance and the proposition on that issue is on the contrary namely to that extent that even if another view is possible then also there should be no interference unless the order is manifestly perverse or irregular. Hence, we are of the opinion that no such contingency is reflecting from the impugned oral order and appellants have not made out any case to call for any interference. 9. Hence, we are of the opinion that no such contingency is reflecting from the impugned oral order and appellants have not made out any case to call for any interference. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited versus Workmen of Narendra & Company reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 has clearly propounded in paragraph No.5 that: - "Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief." 10. As such we are of the view that in fulforce said proposition deserves to be applied here especially when the learned Single Judge while examining an order of remand has taken a particular view not to interfere. We are of the view that appeal lacks merit and same is dismissed hereby. No order as to costs. Notice is discharged. 11. All pending applications, if any, stand consigned to records.