JUDGMENT : With consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is being taken up for final hearing. Rule. Learned advocate Ms.Jani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bharat Vyas waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – State authorities. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned dated: 8/12/2017 passed by the Secretary Revenue department in revision no.HKP/Bhavnagar/5/2005, passed by the respondent no.1 qua rejection of joining party and further be pleased to direct the collector to considered the case of the petitioners also under section 54 A of Shaurashara Gharkhed Ordinance; AA) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing the order dated 15/2/2018 passed by the learned Mamlatdar, Botad in Gharkhed case no.2 of 2018. B) That pending admission herein and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble court be pleased to stay the implementation of impugned dated: 8/12/2017 passed by the Secretary Revenue department in revision no.HKP/Bhavnagar/5/2005, passed by the respondent no.1; BB) Pending admission and final hearing of petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleases to stay the implementation and execution of order dated order dated 15/2/2018 passed by the learned Mamlatdar, Botad in Gharkhed case no.2 of 2018. C) That ad-interim injunction in terms of para (B) may be granted. D) That any other and further relief that is deemed fit and expedient in the interest of justice be granted.” 2. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Anshin Desai with learned advocate Mr.Jinesh Kapadia for the petitioners, learned advocate Ms.Megha Jani for learned advocate Mr.Aadit R. Sanjanwala for Respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bharat Vyas for respondent No.1 – State Authority. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: 3.1 That the land bearing survey no.36/1 paiki 8 Acres situated at Mouje Village: Haddad, Tal.Dist.Botad was originally owned by Moghiben Nanabhai and Bavaldas Nagardas. They sold the land to Manharbhai Ratilal Bagadiya by way of registered sale deed no.327 in the year 1991 and the same was certified on 27.01.1992. They sold the land to Manharbhai Ratilal Bagadiya by way of registered sale deed no.327 in the year 1991 and the same was certified on 27.01.1992. Said Manharbhai Bagadiya sold the land in question in favour of Respondent No.3 – Vallubhai Rukabhai Boliya by way of registered sale-deed No.1729 of 2001 dated 13.09.2001 for which a mutation entry no.2018 was recorded and the same was mutated on 17.09.2001. 3.2 The record indicates that the proceedings against Respondent No.4 were initiated suo motu by the Collector, Bhavnagar for breach of Section 54 of Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Land Ordinance 1949 [‘the Ordinance’, for short] as the Respondent No.4 was not an ‘agriculturist’ and, therefore, vide order dated 14.03.2001 the Collector, Bhavnagar held the transfer of land in question in favour of Respondent No.4 to be invalidated and vested the land into Government. What is noteworthy is the fact that after the Collector passed an order dated 14.03.2001 holding that the land was purchased in breach of provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 and, therefore, the transfer was invalidated, Respondent No.3 herein purchased the land thereafter on 13.09.2001 from Respondent No.4 Manhar Bagadiya, who was not even competent to sell the land to Respondent No.3 as the land was already ordered to be vested in the Government. 3.3 The Respondent No.3 held the land by virtue of aforesaid sale-deed dated 13.09.2001 being sale-deed No.1729 of 2001 and ultimately sold 5 Acres 09 Gunthas of land out of the total land purchased by him to present petitioners by way of sale-deed dated 4405 dated 01.07.2008. Though the sale-deed is not produced, it is stated in the petition that another portion of 1 Acre 24 Gunthas of the said land was purchased by registered sale-deed No.4335 dated 26.06.2008 by the petitioners. 3.4 The aforesaid fact would indicate that the date on which the present petitioners purchased the land, the order dated 14.03.2001 was already passed and land was already vested in the Government. Despite that Respondent No.3 purchased the land from Respondent No.4 on 13.09.2001 and sold the land to the present petitioners in June – July, 2008. 3.4 The aforesaid fact would indicate that the date on which the present petitioners purchased the land, the order dated 14.03.2001 was already passed and land was already vested in the Government. Despite that Respondent No.3 purchased the land from Respondent No.4 on 13.09.2001 and sold the land to the present petitioners in June – July, 2008. 3.5 As per the facts stated in the petition, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2001 passed by the Collector, Bhavnagar, Respondent No.3 preferred Revision Application being No.MVV/HKP/BVN/05 of 2005 before the Secretary, Revenue Department wherein the present petitioners, after purchasing the land when came to know that the order dated 14.03.2001 is challenged by Respondent No.3, preferred an application for being joined as party in the said proceedings. The Secretary, Revenue Department, though application for joining party was preferred in the year 2010, vide order dated 14.10.2010 decided that whether the present petitioners should be joined as party or not to be decided along with the main matter and, therefore, the application of the petitioners for being impleaded as party respondent remained pending and the same was decided along with the Revision Application vide order dated 08.12.2017. 3.6 Vide order dated 08.12.2017, the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), Ahmedabad partly allowed the Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/BVN/05 of 2005 rejecting the application of the petitioners for being joined as party respondent in that applicant and remanded the matter back to the Collector, Bhavnagar by quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.03.2001 whereby the transfer of land in favour of Respondent No.4 was held to be in breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949 and the same was invalidated. 3.7 In the meantime, in the year 2015, vide Notification issued by Revenue Department dated 05.12.2015, Section 54A, 54B and 54C of the Ordinance 1949 came to be inserted in the Act. Thereafter Respondent No.3 preferred an application under Section 54A of the Ordinance, 1949 to the Mamlatdar, Botad as Bhavnagar District was bifurcated into two separate Districts i.e. Botad and Bhavangar and as such the land in question fell within the limits of District : Botad and by virtue of powers conferred under Section 54(A)(2), the Mamlatdar, Botad vide order dated 15.02.2018 regularised the sale of the land in question in favour of Respondent No.3. 3.8 Hence, being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders i.e. (i) the order dated 08.12.2017 whereby the Special Secretary rejected the application of the petitioners for being joined party respondents and remanded the matter back to Collector, Bhavnagar by quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.03.2001 as before the Collector also petitioners would not be heard the petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.12.2017 and (ii) the order dated 15.02.2018 whereby the Mamlatdar, Botad has regularised the sell in favour of Respondent No.3 though the petitioners have purchased the land from Respondent No.3 and they were last purchasers withing the meaning of Section 54A of the Ordinance, 1949 and despite that without joining them as party in the proceedings under Section 54A aforesaid order was passed, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.02.2018 as well. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Anshin Desai appearing with learned advocate Mr.Jinesh Kapadia made following submissions: 4.1 The present petitioners are agriculturists and they have purchased the land in question by way of registered sale-deed in June-July, 2008 and, therefore, by virtue of insertion of Sections 54A, 54B and 54C of the Ordinance, 1949 which provide that even if transaction in breach of Section 54 of the Act has taken place, present petitioners, in whose favour the ‘last transaction’ was made on or before 30.06.2015 are ‘agriculturists’, the Mamlatdar was required to issue notice to that person i.e. petitioners and was required to give him/them opportunity of hearing and to make an inquiry in this regard and thereafter upon inquiry if the Mamlatdar comes to the conclusion that as a result of ‘last transaction’ in respect of such land, which was transferred to the person who was agriculturist, the Mamlatdar has powers to call upon that person to pay to the State Government an amount of 10% of prevailing Jantri and upon payment of the aforesaid amount he can regularise the transaction for utilising the land only for agriculture purpose. 4.2 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai submitted that in the instant case the present petitioners were the persons in whose favour the last transaction before 30.06.2015 has taken place and present petitioners being agriculturist, the Mamlatdar was required to issue notice to the present petitioners before regularising the land in question in favour of Respondent No.3. 4.2 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai submitted that in the instant case the present petitioners were the persons in whose favour the last transaction before 30.06.2015 has taken place and present petitioners being agriculturist, the Mamlatdar was required to issue notice to the present petitioners before regularising the land in question in favour of Respondent No.3. 4.3 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai submitted that the order dated 08.12.2017 has become infructuous for the reason that before that order could be acted upon by the Collector, Bhavnagar or Collector, Botad, the proceedings under Section 54A took place and order dated 15.02.2018 was passed regularising the sale of the land in question in favour of Respondent No.3 and, therefore, though today the petitioners are owners of the land by virtue of registered sale-deed in their favour and though Respondent No.3 have already sold the land in favour of present petitioners, the land in question is regularised in favour of Respondent No.3. 4.4 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai submitted that the Respondent No.3 has acted in utmost dishonest manner and the order dated 15.02.2018 was obtained by not adhering to statement made before the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 and by not disclosing the correct facts before the Mamlatdar, Botad that the land in question was sold by Respondent No.3 himself to the present petitioners in the year 2008. Mr.Desai submitted that the Respondent No.3 never disclosed before the Mamlatdar, Botad that the date on which he made an application i.e. in the year 2018, he was not even the owner of the land nor he was in possession of the land in question. He drew attention of this Court to the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 and submitted that during the pendency of Revision Application being MVV/HKP/BVN/05 of 2005, Respondent No.3 preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 with a prayer to direct the Mamlatdar to accept and decide the application submitted by the petitioners [ petitioner of that petition – respondent no.3 herein] under Section 54A of the Ordinance by following the procedures prescribed under Section 54 of the Ordinance. 4.5 From the aforesaid order, learned senior advocate Mr.Desai pointed out that present petitioners were not joined as respondents in that petition nor the aforesaid fact was brought to notice of this Court that the respondent no.3, who was the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 has already parted with the land and he was not competent to make application under Section 54A of the Act. 4.6 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai also pointed out in the order dated 04.10.2017 while disposing of the petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had specifically observed that counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that tomorrow itself i.e. on 05.10.2017 he would file appropriate application before SSRD for withdrawal of the revision application. However, no such application was ever filed and petitioner, after assuring the Court that revision application No.5 of 2005 would be withdrawn by filing appropriate application, did not withdraw the aforesaid application and ultimately the order dated 08.12.2017 was passed. 4.7 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai further drew attention of this Court about the fact that impugned order dated 08.12.2017 specifically mentions that lastly the matter was heard on 23.03.2017 and on 23.03.2017 the parties to the litigation completed the arguments. However, these facts were also not brought to the notice of this Court that in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/BVN/05 of 2005 arguments were already concluded and same was kept ‘for orders’. 4.8 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai submitted that the order by coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 dated 04.10.2017 directing the Mamlatdar, Botad to accept the application to be filed by Respondent No.3 under Section 54A and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of such application was conditional order. In para:7 of the said order it is categorically observed by Coordinate Bench of this Court that once the Revision Application is withdrawn then it will be open for the applicant to file an application before the Mamlatdar, Botad. However, Respondent No.3 conveniently ignored the condition imposed and without withdrawing the revision application, preferred an application under Section 54A of the Act before the Mamlatdar, Botad which was decided by Mamlatdar, Botad and regularised the transfer of the land in question in favour of Respondent No.3. However, Respondent No.3 conveniently ignored the condition imposed and without withdrawing the revision application, preferred an application under Section 54A of the Act before the Mamlatdar, Botad which was decided by Mamlatdar, Botad and regularised the transfer of the land in question in favour of Respondent No.3. 4.9 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai submitted that the order dated 15.02.2018 whereby the land in question has been regularised in favour of Respondent No.3 is regularised despite the fact that the Respondent No.3 was not the ‘last purchaser’ of the land in question and though the last purchaser of the land are petitioners, even without inquiring the fact about in whose favour last transaction of land in question had taken place and without joining the petitioners, the Mamlatdar and ALT has passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2018. Learned senior advocate pointed out that once the petitioners have purchased the land from Respondent No.3 in June-July, 2008 and the petitioners have purchased the land from Respondent No.3 by way of Registered Sale Deed, the Respondent No.3 has obtained the order dated 15.02.2018 by misleading and suppressing the material fact about last transaction in respect of land in question not just before Mamlatdar ALT but before this Court as well. He further submitted that if the impugned orders are allowed to stand, in that case, petitioners would be rendered remediless and Respondent No.3 will get the premium for his dishonesty as he did not stick to the statement he made before this Court nor did he approach before this Court in earlier round of litigation while preferring Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 with clean hands and without obeying the order of the Court he conveniently disrespected the condition precedent which was of withdrawal of the revision application. He was to submit application under Section 54A only after withdrawing the Revision Application and, therefore, when a person has disrespected the court proceedings, if such orders are allowed to stand in favour of such persons, in that case, it would encourage others also to disrespect the orders of the Court and therefore to maintain and uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court also, the order dated 15.02.2018 which has been obtained dishonestly by Respondent No.3 requires to be quashed and set aside. 4.10 During the course of hearing, as by way of amendment the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad whereby the Mamlatdar, Botad has regularised the sale of land in question in favour of Respondent No.3, learned advocate Ms.Megha Jani for Respondent has taken preliminary objection about maintainability of the present petition in view of availability of alternative remedy and it was suggested to challenge the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad before the Deputy Collector or appropriate authority and, therefore, learned senior advocate Mr.Desai relied upon judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 and submitted that there are exceptions carved out by Law and in certain cases parties are not required to be directed to exhaust the alternative remedy. Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai relying upon the above referred judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) referred the circumstances carved out in the decision wherein even without relegating the parties to avail alternative remedy, this Court can straightway entertain the petition. Those circumstances are;- “(i) Where remedy available under statute is not effective but only mere formality with no substantial relief, (ii) where statutory authority not acted in accordance with provisions of enactment in question or (iii) where statutory authority acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or (iv) where statutory authority resorted to invoke provisions which are repealed, or (v) where statutory authority passed an order in total violation of principles of natural justice.” 4.11 Further, learned senior advocate Mr.Desai also pointed out from the record that Respondent No.3 has preferred Special Civil Suit No.51 of 2018 for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 26.06.2008 before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bhavnagar in the month of July, 2018 i.e. only after the Mamlatdar, Botad passed an order dated 15.02.2018. Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai submitted that not only the aforesaid suit is time barred but legally also in view of the fact that Respondent No.3 himself was party to the aforesaid sale-deed that suit is nothing but an attempt to delay and defeat the justice. Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai submitted that not only the aforesaid suit is time barred but legally also in view of the fact that Respondent No.3 himself was party to the aforesaid sale-deed that suit is nothing but an attempt to delay and defeat the justice. 4.12 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai by relying upon the judgment dated 14.08.2012 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1875 of 2007 and 1065 of 2007 in case of Dashrathlal M. Patel Heirs and L.R. of Maganbhai Joitaram vs. State of Gujarat submitted that the action of Respondent No.3 is nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law and in similar fact though not identical, the Division Bench of our High Court not only rejected the petition and Letters Patent Appeal but also imposed exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- upon the appellant. 4.13 Learned senior advocate Mr.Desai thereafter relied upon the judgment in case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2011 (3) GLH 98 and submitted that Courts must refuse to enforce an illegal agreement at the instance of the person who is himself a party to an illegality or fraud and, therefore, at this stage, now the Respondent No.3 cannot say that the aforesaid sale executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of present petitioners is bad and is required to be quashed and set aside. 4.14 By making aforesaid submissions, learned senior advocate Mr.Desai prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 08.12.2017 and 15.02.2018. 5. Learned advocate Ms.Megha Jani appearing with learned advocate Mr.Aadit R. Snajanwala for Respondent No.3 made following submissions. 5.1 That the present petition has become infructuous as far as it challenges to order dated 08.12.2017 as now in view of subsequent order dated 15.02.2018 though the Secretary, Revenue Department remanded the matter back to the Collector, Botad or Collector, Bhavnagar for fresh adjudication by quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.03.2001, in view of subsequent order dated 15.02.2018 whereby the sale of land is regularised in favour of present Respondent No.3, the petition so far it challenges the order dated 08.12.2017 is concerned it has become infructuous. 5.2 As far as the order dated 15.02.2018 is concerned, learned advocate Ms.Jani submitted that in view of judgment of this Court in case of Vallubhai Kukabhai Boliya vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.14377 of 2003 and allied matters, more particularly observations made in paras:5 and 13 of the said judgment, the present petitioners are required to avail alternative remedy if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2018 and as there is alternative efficacious remedy available to the present petitioners, the present petition should not be entertained. 5.3 Learned advocate Ms.Jani further submitted that the order passed by Mamlatdar, Botad is even otherwise legal and valid as Mamlatdar has examined the record and held that Respondent No.3 is an ‘agriculturist’ and as the Respondent No.3 purchased the land from Respondent No.4, the Respondent No.3 being an agriculturist when the original proceedings were initiated against Respondent No.4 for breach of Section 54 when Respondent No.3 was agriculturist, he is entitled to benefit of Section 54A and therefore the same has rightly been granted by Mamlatdar, Botad by following due procedures prescribed under the Ordinance, 1949. 6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bharat Vyas for Respondent – State Authority purusant to the order passed by this Court dated 09.12.2021, had produced entire record in respect of proceedings before the Mamlatdar, Botad on affidavit dated 15.12.2021 and, therefore, he relied upon affidavit dated 15.12.2021 only and by relying upon aforesaid affidavit submitted that appropriate order be passed. 7.1 I have heard learned advocates for the parties, perused the record and have considered the decisions cited by them. 7.2 Since learned advocate Ms.Jani has raised contention in respect of availability of alternative remedy as far as order dated 15.02.2018 is concerned and submitted that the petition has become infructuous as far as order dated 08.12.2017 is concerned, before considering the merits of the matter, I may first deal with the aforesaid contention in respect of availability of alternative remedy. 7.3 It is true that the petitioner has initially at the time of filing of the petition preferred a petition challenging the order dated 08.12.2017 only and subsequently by way of amendment challenged the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by Mamlatdar, Botad regularising the sale in favour of Respondent No.3 and, therefore, as submitted by learned advocate Ms.Jani assisted by learned advocate Mr.Aadit R. Sanjanwala as far as challenge to the order dated 15.02.2018 is concerned, it should not have been challenged straightway before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, to deal with that contention, first of all, what is required to be seen is the circumstances under which the order dated 15.02.2018 is passed. 7.4 On perusal of the record, I have found that Respondent No.3 is the original petitioner of Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 which is disposed of vide order dated 04.10.2017. The aforesaid petition was filed at a time when the Respondent No.3 had simultaneously challenged the order dated 14.03.2001 whereby land was directed to be vested in Government in view of breach of condition of Section 54 by Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.3 herein purchased the land in question on 13.09.2001 i.e. after the order of vesting the land in question into the Government was passed. Meaning thereby that when Respondent No.3 purchased the land he was well aware about the fact that the land in question has already been vested in Government as Respondent No.4 was not an agriculturist and in view of proceedings for breach of Section 54 of the Act, the Collector has already passed an order dated 14.03.2001 holding the transaction to be invalid and vesting the land in question into State and after almost 6 months after that order was passed the land in question was purchased by Respondent No.3 herein. 7.5 After the Respondent No.3 purchased the land in question by registered sale-deed dated 13.09.2001, he challenged the order dated 14.03.2001 almost after more than three years by way of Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/BVN/05 of 2005 and during the pendency of that Revision Application, he sold the land by way of registered sale-deed in favour of present petitioners in June – July, 2008. The Respondent No.3 did not disclose these facts before the Secretary (Revenue) Department where he was revisionist in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Bhavnagar/05 of 2005. The Respondent No.3 did not disclose these facts before the Secretary (Revenue) Department where he was revisionist in Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/Bhavnagar/05 of 2005. After having come to know about aforesaid fact that the land has already been vested in Government and Respondent No.3 has sold the land which was already vested into Government, when the present petitioners preferred application for being joined as party respondent in Revision Application No.05 of 2005, as back as in the year 2010, the SSRD instead of deciding the application for impleadment of party, kept the application pending along with main matter and ultimately rejected the said application vide order dated 08.12.2017. 7.6 In the meantime, arguments in respect of Revision Application No.05 of 2005 were concluded on 23.03.2017. However, the petitioner of the revision application i.e. Respondent No.3 herein, without even waiting for outcome of the aforesaid Revision Application or without even disclosing the fact that the matter has been heard and is kept for orders, preferred Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 seeking a relief that Mamlatdar, Botad be directed to accept his application under Section 54A and to decide the same by following procedures prescribed under Section 54A. 7.7 What is noteworthy is the fact that Respondent No.3 was aware about the fact that he himself had sold the land by way of registered sale-deed to the petitioners and petitioners had already made an application for being joined as party respondent in the revision application. Despite that, present petitioners were not joined as party in Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017. Not only that even in that petition also, it seems that there was no mention about the fact that Respondent No.3 had subsequently sold the land to the petitioners. Meaning thereby, the petition was preferred by suppressing material fact but with innocuous prayers. To give a clear idea about dishonesty of the petitioner of that petition being Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017, who is Respondent No.3 herein, the order dated 04.10.2017 is reproduced as under: “1. Mr. Mangukiya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, as the party respondent No.2. The cause title be amended accordingly forthwith. 2. As the issue involved in this petition is very limited, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Mr. Mangukiya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, as the party respondent No.2. The cause title be amended accordingly forthwith. 2. As the issue involved in this petition is very limited, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “20(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, and to direct the respondent – Mamlatdar to accept and decide the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 54A of the Ordinance and follow the procedure prescribed under Section 54A of the Ordinance; (B) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to direct the respondent – Mamlatdar to accept and decide the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 54A of the Ordinance and follow the procedure prescribed under Section 54A of the Ordinance; (C) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.” 4. The subject-matter of this petition is a parcel of agricultural land bearing survey No.36/1 paiki admeasuring 8 Acres situated at village: Haldad, Taluka and District: Botad. The original owner of this parcel of land was one Monghiben Nanabhai. It appears from the materials on record that in the year 1989, Monghiben transferred the land in question in favour of one Manhar Bagadiya by a registered sale deed. After a period of ten years, the authority concerned initiated suo motu proceedings in this regard for breach of Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949. The proceedings were initiated on the premise that Manhar Bagadiya, not being an agriculturist, could not have purchased the agricultural land. The record reveals that while those suo motu proceedings were pending, Manhar Bagadiya transferred the land in question in favour of the present petitioner. The Collector, ultimately, passed an order holding that the transaction between Monghiben Nanabhai and Manhar Bagadiya was illegal, and the same being in breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949, ordered that the land be forfeited to the State Government. The order of the Collector, Bhavnagar is dated 14th March 2002. The Collector, ultimately, passed an order holding that the transaction between Monghiben Nanabhai and Manhar Bagadiya was illegal, and the same being in breach of Section 54 of the Ordinance, 1949, ordered that the land be forfeited to the State Government. The order of the Collector, Bhavnagar is dated 14th March 2002. As the petitioner acquired interest in the land having purchased from Manhar Bagadiya, pursued the litigation and challenged the order of the Collector before the S.S.R.D. at Ahmedabad. The proceedings in this regard are pending before the S.S.R.D. as on date. 5. It appears that in the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, Sections 54A, 54B and 54C came to be inserted vide Notification issued by the Revenue Department dated 5th December 2015. As we are concerned only with Sections 54A and 54B, I may quote the same as under: “5. In the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance”), after Section 54, the following sections shall be inserted, namely:- “54A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 54, where the Mamlatdar suo moto or on the application of any person interested in the land, has reason to believe that, in the breach of the provisions of clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section 54, transfer of the land had taken place in favour of a person who was not an agriculturist, and that certain transaction or transactions have taken place thereafter and the person in whose favour the last transaction was made on or before the 30th June, 2015, is an agriculturist, he shall issue a notice to such person and shall give him an opportunity of being heard and also make an inquiry as he deems fit. (2) If the Mamlatdar comes to the conclusion that as a result of the last transaction in respect of such land the person to whom such land was transferred is indeed an agriculturist, he shall call upon such person to pay to the State Government, for the use of such land only for the agricultural purpose, the amount of ten per cent of the prevailing Jantri and after such payment he shall declare, by an order, such transaction to be valid irrespective of the fact that any one or more of such transactions was or were invalid and upon such order, no proceedings under section 75 shall be initiated and if already initiated shall be discontinued forthwith. 54B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 54 or 75A but subject to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, any institution registered as a public trust for charitable purpose under the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950, or any company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 which has in its objects the promotion of charity and to which provisions of section 8 of the said Act are applicable, has purchased the land in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 54 on or before the 30th June, 2015, such institution shall be to make an application within six months from the commencement of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, to the Collector for conversion of such land into non-agricultural purpose. (2) On an application made under sub-section (1), the Collector shall make a detailed inquiry and comes to the conclusion that such institution has, in contravention of the provisions as referred to in sub-section (1) to pay such amount in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government and if such public trust or company pays such sum as directed by the Collector, the Collector shall allow the conversion of such land into the non-agricultural purpose and pass the order accordingly.” 6. In such circumstances referred to above, the petitioner herein preferred an application dated 8th March 2017 before the Secretary (Appeals) inter alia stating as under: “MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR: The petitioner most respectfully states as under : 1. In such circumstances referred to above, the petitioner herein preferred an application dated 8th March 2017 before the Secretary (Appeals) inter alia stating as under: “MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR: The petitioner most respectfully states as under : 1. The petitioner states that aforestated revision application has been preferred, inter-alia, challenging the order passed by the Collector dated August 29, 2003, whereby the transfer application has been held illegal in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural b Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the WG-36. “€5rdn’i‘ance” for short). The Collector while passing the impugned order recorded that land bearing survey no. 634/1 and 634/2 of Botad was purchased by Mr.Manhar Ratilal Bagadiya, who was not agriculturist at the relevant point of time and, therefore, land which is purchased by the present petitioner from Mr.Manhar Ratilal Bagadiya is an illegal transaction. The facts in the present case is undisputed fact that the original owner of the said survey number is an agriculturist. The show cause notice came to be issued by the Collector dated March 28, 2002 stated that Mr. Manhar Ratilal Bagadiya was not an agriculturist and, therefore, the said transactions are illegal. Mr. Manhar Bagadia has not obtained permission for purchase of the said piece of land and, therefore, committed breach of section 54 of the Ordinance. {The State Legislature enacted the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment), 2015 (Gujarat Act No.28 of 2015) which provides insertion of section 54-A in the Ordinance. Section 54-A of the Ordinance provides that if the last purchaser who has purchased the property on or before June 30, 2015, is an agriculturist, the Mamlatdar shall call upon last purchaser to pay to the State Government the amount of 10% of the prevailing Jantri and after such payment, the Mamlatdar shall declare by an order that the last transaction is valid, irrespective of the fact that any one or more such transaction(s) was or were invalid and on recording of such order, no proceeding under section 75 of the Ordinance shall be initiated or continued. 2. The petitioner states that petitioner is an agriculturist by birth. 3. 2. The petitioner states that petitioner is an agriculturist by birth. 3. The petitioner states that in view of the aforestated facts and without prejudice to rights and contentions of the petitioner in this proceeding, this matter is required to be remanded to the Mamlatdar as provided in section 54-A of the Ordinance. 4. The petitioner states that petitioner is litigating since decades. Therefore, delay in this proceeding is causing great prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, this order may be recorded immediately. 5. On the premises mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner prays that Your Honour may - (A) be pleased to transfer this proceeding before the Mamlatdar, Botad and be directed to follow the procedure prescribed under section 54-A of the Ordinance; (B) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require. “7. Mr. Mangukiya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the wake of insertion of Section 54A in the Ordinance, 1949 referred to above, his client may not even press before the S.S.R.D. to go into the issue of legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector forfeiting the land in question. According to Mr. Mangukiya, the petitioner, indisputably, is an agriculturist and his case is covered by Section 54A of the Ordinance, 1949 referred to above. It appears that the entire object of insertion of Section 54A is to regularise the transaction made on or before the 31st June 2015 in favour of those persons who are agriculturists. To put it in other words, the first transaction between Monghiben and Manharbhai Bagadiya could be termed to be in breach of Section 54A of the Ordinance, 1949, as it is not clear whether Manhar Bagadiya is an agriculturist or not. But, as Bagadiya transferred the land in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner being an agriculturist, the newly inserted Sections 54A and 54B of the Ordinance, 1949 would apply. 7. In such circumstances referred to above, the S.S.R.D., instead of going into the issue whether the Collector was justified in forfeiting the land in question by passing the order dated 14th March 2002, it would be appropriate for the S.S.R.D. to permit the petitioner to withdraw the revision application. 7. In such circumstances referred to above, the S.S.R.D., instead of going into the issue whether the Collector was justified in forfeiting the land in question by passing the order dated 14th March 2002, it would be appropriate for the S.S.R.D. to permit the petitioner to withdraw the revision application. Once the revision application is withdrawn, then it will be open for the petitioner to file an application, which is at page: 67 of the paper book, before the Mamlatdar, Botad. The Mamlatdar, Botad shall accept the application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of the submission of such application. 8. Mr. Mangukiya, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that tomorrow itself, an appropriate application will be filed before the S.S.R.D. for withdrawal of the revision application. However, according to Mr. Mangukiya, the S.S.R.D. might take some time to pass an appropriate order permitting the petitioner to withdraw the revision application. Since the statement is being made that the revision application will be withdrawn by filing an appropriate application tomorrow itself, this should be sufficient for the Mamlatdar, Botad to accept the application, which is at page: 67 of the paper book and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application. 9. I clarify that the withdrawal of the revision application will be at the risk of the petitioner, as he forfeits his right to question the legality and validity of the order of the Collector. 10. In the event, if the Mamlatdar, Botad rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Section 54A, then it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same before the superior revenue authorities with all the legal submissions available to him. 11. With the above, this petition is disposed of. 10. In the event, if the Mamlatdar, Botad rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Section 54A, then it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same before the superior revenue authorities with all the legal submissions available to him. 11. With the above, this petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.” 7.8 The aforesaid order would indicate that what was the prayer in the petition, what were the facts projected before the coordinate Bench of this Court by Respondent No.3 and though in para:7 [since two times para:7 is typed, para:7 which is just before para:8 is referred] and though in the para:7 Court specifically observed that once the Revision Application is withdrawn, it will be open for the petitioner i.e. Respondent No.3 herein to make an application before Mamlatdar and directed the Mamlatdar, Botad to accept the same and to decide it within two weeks from the date of submission. Not only that, in para:8 of the order, the Court also noted the statement of learned advocate appearing for the petitioner stating that on very next date an appropriate application for withdrawal would be filed. The fact remains that neither the direction was complied with by Respondent No.3 nor any application for withdrawal of the application seemed to have been filed because had the Respondent No.3 withdrawn the revision application as directed by the Court, in that case, Secretary, Revenue Department would not have passed the order dated 08.12.2017. Further, the Respondent No.3 did not disclose before this Court that withdrawal of revision application would adversely affect the present petitioners as petitioner’s application for joining party was also pending which would indicate that the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 was passed without knowing correct facts as Respondent No.3 deliberately suppressed those material facts. As the Court directed Mamlatdar, Botad to accept the application under Section 54A to decide it within two weeks, the Mamlatdar, Botad accepted the application. However, Mamlatdar, Botad was required to read the order entirely and was required to ask for withdrawal of the revision application. The Respondent No.3 never withdrew revision application No.05 of 2005 nor joined the present petitioners as party respondent before Mamlatdar, Botad, nor even declared before the Mamlatdar, Botad the fact that they have sold the land by way of registered sale-deed to the present petitioners. The Respondent No.3 never withdrew revision application No.05 of 2005 nor joined the present petitioners as party respondent before Mamlatdar, Botad, nor even declared before the Mamlatdar, Botad the fact that they have sold the land by way of registered sale-deed to the present petitioners. 7.9 The aforesaid facts would indicate that order dated 04.10.2017 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 as well as the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by Mamlatdar, Botad under the proceedings under Section 54A were passed on the basis of incorrect and suppressed facts presented by Respondent No.3 on account of his dishonest intention and, therefore, when the Mamlatdar, Botad had passed order dated 15.02.2018 on the basis of suppression of facts and on the basis of dishonest intention of the respondent no.3, for challenge to such orders, petitioners should not be relegated to avail alternative remedy as the basis on which the order dated 15.12.2018 is passed is suppression and dishonesty and, therefore, the contention in respect of availability of alternative remedy cannot be accepted and the same is out-rightly rejected and this petition is held to be maintainable so far it challenges to the order dated 15.02.2018 is concerned. 7.10 This Court has also considered the fact that present petitioners were not joined as party respondents by Respondent No.3 who was the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017 as well as before the Mamlatdar, Botad in the proceedings under Section 54 A of the Ordinance and as the petitioners were never joined by Respondent No.3 in above referred Special Civil Application, nor Mamlatdar, Botad ever heard the petitioners, despite the order dated 15.02.2018 was passed the order was passed without hearing the petitioners in those violation of principles of natural justice and as aforesaid order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and equity is sought to be created in favour of Respondent No.3 without hearing the petitioners as per the settled principles of law, the availability of alternative remedy would not operate as bar in entertaining the petition straightway before this Court. 7.11 Further, the conduct of the Respondent No.3 is also required to be seen. Respondent No.3 himself has executed registered sale-deed in favour of petitioners in June – July, 2008 and has pocketed the consideration towards the land. 7.11 Further, the conduct of the Respondent No.3 is also required to be seen. Respondent No.3 himself has executed registered sale-deed in favour of petitioners in June – July, 2008 and has pocketed the consideration towards the land. Thereafter Respondent No.3 waited for ten years, did not challenge the aforesaid registered sale-deed and it is only after order dated 15.02.2018 was passed regularising the sale in question in favour of Respondent No.3, the Respondent No.3 preferred civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.51 of 2018 before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bhavnagar seeking relief of cancellation of registered sale-deed against the present petitioners after a period of ten years which also would show how dishonestly the Respondent No.3 has acted. 7.12 Though learned senior advocate Mr.Desai in respect of conduct of Respondent No.3 has relied upon two judgments of Division Bench of this Court in case of Dashrathlal M. Patel Heirs and L.R. of Maganbhai Joitaram vs. State of Guajrat (supra) and in case of Rameshbhai Ambalal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and another (supra), considering the fact that since above referred civil suit is pending, any discussion about manner in which sale-deed was executed may affect and influence the pending civil suit and, therefore, I may not discuss the aforesaid aspect in detail. 7.13 The fact remains that language of Section 54A of the Ordinance is absolutely clear. It provides that if a person is an agriculturist and if the ‘last transaction’ is in his favour and if transaction was made on or before 30.06.2015, in case if he is an agriculturist, the sale can be regularised in his favour after following due procedure as prescribed under Section 54A on payment of 10% of the prevailing Jantri. Considering the fact that, prima facie, petitioners have succeeded in showing that petitioners are agriculturists and they are last purchasers, in whose favour last transaction was made before 30.06.2015, they are entitled to get the benefits of provisions of Section 54A of the Ordinance. Considering the fact that, prima facie, petitioners have succeeded in showing that petitioners are agriculturists and they are last purchasers, in whose favour last transaction was made before 30.06.2015, they are entitled to get the benefits of provisions of Section 54A of the Ordinance. 7.14 Since Section 54A and 54B are already reproduced in order dated 04.10.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.18080 of 2017, which is already produced in forgoing para, I may not reproduce those provisions once again but prima facie it seems that petitioners are agriculturists in whose favour the last transaction in respect of amount has taken place and, therefore, if any application under Section 54A is made by petitioners, the Mamlatdar is required to consider the same in accordance with law after hearing the respondents including the State Government and Respondent No.3. 7.15 Insofar as Respondent No.3 is concerned, since Respondent No.3 himself has executed sale-deed in favour of present petitioners, prima facie, I am of the view that though Respondent No.3 also is an agriculturist, but the language of Section 54A refers to the ‘last transaction’ and ‘last transaction’ in respect of land in question was executed in June – July, 2008 in favour of present petitioners and, therefore, it is the present petitioners who can seek benefit of Section 54A and Section 54B and not the Respondent No.3. 7.16 Since the order dated 15.02.2018 was passed by Mamlatdar, Botad without hearing the present petitioners and as the said order was entirely based on one sided facts and not on the basis of correct facts, that order is required to be quashed and set aside. Further, in view of the fact that petitioners are having right, title and interest in the land in question, which is created by virtue of sale-deed in June-July, 2008 in favour of present petitioners by Respondent No.3, they are necessary and proper party to be heard before adjudicating any proceeding in respect of the land in question. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that Secretary, Revenue Department has committed an error by not considering the application for being joined as party respondent of the present petitioners in its true perspective and hence has committed an error by rejecting the said application and, therefore, that part of the order is required to be quashed and set aside. 7.17 As far as remanding the matter back by quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.03.2001 is concerned, in view of provisions of Sections 54A and 54B, if present petitioners make an application under Section 54A and as Section 54A and 54B provide for inquiry to determine whether applicant is an agriculturist or not even subsequent part of the order dated 08.12.2017 is also required to be quashed and set aside and, therefore, entire order dated 08.12.2017 is required to be quashed and set aside in view of amended provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance. 8. Resultantly, following order is passed. 8.1 The order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department and the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad are hereby quashed and set aside; the order dated 08.12.2017 is quashed and set aside only to the extent it rejects the application of the petitioner to be empleaded as party respondent; 8.2 The order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Revenue Department and the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar, Botad are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent as it operate adversely against the present petitioners and it is held that the petitioners were necessary and proper party while adjudicating Revision Application No.HKP/Bhavnagar/05 of 2005 and in the event if the remand proceedings as per the order dated 08.12.2017 are necessitated, in the said proceedings the petitioners must be heard and then only Collector of Bhavnagar or Botad shall pass any order; 8.3 It is open for the petitioners to prefer an application under Section 54A for regularising the sale in their favour as it is held that they are the persons in whose favour ‘last transaction’ in respect of land in question has taken place. However, whether the petitioners are agriculturist or not is a question that has to be determined by Mamlatdar, Botad after following due procedures prescribed under the Ordinance more particularly Section 54A; 8.4 Even if such application is made by petitioners, the petitioners shall join Respondent No.3 in particular as respondent in that proceedings and Mamlatdar, Botad is directed to hear and decide said proceedings on its own merits after following due procedures prescribed under Ordinance, independently without being influenced by this order and if any such application under Section 54A of the Ordinance is preferred by the petitioners as well as Respondent No.3 also, in that case, Mamlatdar, Botad is directed to hear and decide both the applications together, however, in that case, petitioners as well as Respondent No.3 are directed to file fresh application under Section 54A within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and upon receipt of such application, Mamlatdar, Botad is directed to hear and decide the same within a period of six months thereafter by passing a reasoned order and by recording submissions of both the sides. 8.5 If neither the petitioner nor Respondent No.3 prefers any application under Section 54A of the Ordinance latest by 31.08.2023, in that case only, the order dated 08.12.2017 would become operational only to the extent it remands the matter back to the Collector Bhavnagar or Botad whoever is competent to hear the proceedings initiated for breach of provisions of Section 54 of the Ordinance; 8.6 Since the proceedings available under Section 54 of the Ordinance and either party application under Section 54A of the Ordinance cannot go together simultaneously, remand proceedings would commence only in case if none of the parties i.e. the petitioners or respondents make an application under Section 54A of the Ordinance. 9. With the above observations and directions, present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 10. In view of above, connected civil application would not survive and it is disposed of accordingly. 11. Learned advocate Ms.Jani appearing with learned advocate Mr.Sanjanwala prays for staying this order for a period of four weeks. However, considering the discussion made hereinabove, the request for stay is rejected.