JUDGMENT : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gaurang Vaghela for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent State Authorities. Since all the petitions are interconnected, they are being decided by the present common judgment. 2. At the outset, it would be profitable to have an overall conspectus of the facts in its entirety before dealing with individual petitions. It appears that the family of the petitioners had held agricultural lands in village: Masma, Ta. Oldpad, Dist. Surat, and whereas originally Ceiling Act Case No.1852 of 1977, had been initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Choryasi, Dist. Surat, under the provisions of the Gujarat Agriculture Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (herein after to be referred to as “the Act”) against the mother of the petitioners and whereas vide an order dated 20.01.1981, lands admeasuring 4A. and 30G. were declared surplus from the land held by the petitioners. It appears that the said order had been challenged by mother of the petitioners before the Deputy Collector, Olpad, by preferring Ceiling Revision Case No.86 of 1981 and whereas vide order dated 22.10.1981, the Deputy Collector had quashed the order by the Mamaltdar and ALT and remanded the matter back to the State Authorities. It appears that in remand proceedings, the Mamlatdar & ALT vide an order dated 25.03.1982, had declared that there is no excess land in the holding of the petitioner family. It appears that the said order passed by the Mamaltdar and ALT, had been taken for statutory review before the Deputy Collector and whereas the order dated 25.03.1982 had been set aside and vide order dated 15.01.1983, the Deputy Collector had once again remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar and ALT. 3. In the remand proceedings, the Mamlatdar and ALT had declared 14A. and 4G. as being excess land held by the family of the petitioners vide order dated 06.12.1986. It requires to be mentioned here that the order dated 06.12.1986 is the principal order and while this Court is hearing a group of five petitions preferred by the very selfsame petitioners, where different orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are under challenge, yet it requires to be mentioned that all the five petitions in one way or other way emanates from the order dated 06.12.1986 passed in Ceiling Case No.1852/1977. 4. 4. It appears that the said order dated 06.12.1986 had been challenged by the petitioners through their Power of Attorney before the Deputy Collector, Olpad, vide Ceiling Appeal No.47/1987 and vide order dated 13.08.1987, the Deputy Collector, Olpad, had rejected the challenge against the order dated 06.12.1986 by the Mamlatdar and ALT. At this stage, it requires to mention that order dated 13.08.1987 had been challenged by the petitioners before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by preferring Revision Application No.TEN/BS/13/2018, which Revision Application had been rejected by the learned GRT vide order dated 01.05.2024, which order is impugned in the Special Civil Application No.12816 of 2024. 5. At this stage, it also requires to be mentioned that in the interregnum from 1987 to 2018, the petitioners had taken out various proceedings including independently challenging order dated 06.12.1986 by the Mamlatdar and ALT before the Deputy Collector, which was rejected vide order dated 15.07.2011. Later the Deputy Collector, Olpad, had vide order dated 30.08.2012 allotted the land declared as excess as per the scheme of the Act and the same had been challenged by the petitioners preferring three separate Revision Applications before the learned GRT, which Revision Applications being Revision Application Nos.46, 47 and 48 of 2012 had been rejected by order dated 04.10.2012 by the learned GRT. It also appears that Review Applications had been preferred against all three orders being TEN/CS/4, 5 & 6/2018 and whereas vide order dated 26.03.2024, the three Review Applications preferred in orders dated 04.10.2012 confirming the order of allotment had been rejected by the learned GRT, which orders have been challenged before this Court vide Special Civil Application Nos.12803, 12854 and 12856 of 2024. 6. It also requires to be mentioned here that the above referred order dated 26.03.2024 also rejected a Review Application in Revision Application No.38 of 2012, which was preferred challenging the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector, Olpad, rejecting a challenge by the petitioners against the order dated 06.12.1986 by the Mamlatdar & ALT. The GRT vide order dated 04.10.2012 had rejected the Revision Application by confirming order of the Deputy Collector dated 15.07.2011 and whereas a review had been filed by the petitioners being TEN/CS/3/2018, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 26.03.2024, which order is challenged in Special Civil Application No.12852 of 2024. 7. The GRT vide order dated 04.10.2012 had rejected the Revision Application by confirming order of the Deputy Collector dated 15.07.2011 and whereas a review had been filed by the petitioners being TEN/CS/3/2018, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 26.03.2024, which order is challenged in Special Civil Application No.12852 of 2024. 7. Now, in light of overall facts noted above, this Court will deal with the petitions individually. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.12816 of 2024: 8(A) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged order passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 01.05.2024 in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/13/2018 confirming order dated 13.08.1987 passed by the Deputy Collector, Olpad, Dist. Surat, rejecting challenge to order dated 06.12.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Olpad, declaring certain areas of land bearing Block No.121, 348, 478 and 500, in total admeasuring 14A. and 4G. as surplus lands from the lands held by the petitioners. 8(B) It would appear that the learned GRT vide impugned order had rejected the challenge of the petitioners to order dated 13.08.1987 inter alia on the ground that there was no reason forthcoming for making out sufficient cause for condoning delay of 31 years, which had occurred in filing Revision Application. The learned GRT notes that while the petitioners are attempting to make out a case that for the very first time, the petitioners came to know about the order dated 13.08.1987 on 12.09.2017 and whereas such contention had not been accepted by the learned GRT. 8(C) Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Vaghela and having perused the documents on record including the order passed by the learned GRT impugned herein dated 01.05.2024, there is no specific contention coming out at any stage including even in pleadings in the present petition that the petitioners had never given Power of Attorney to any person to file the appeal, which had been disposed of by the Deputy Collector dated 13.08.1987. In the petition, very guardedly it has been mentioned that at the time of collecting the record, no such Power of Attorney was found (para 3.18). 8(D) To this Court, it would appear that the order of the Malatlatdar and ALT, Olpad, dated 06.12.1986, whereby 14A. and 4G. In the petition, very guardedly it has been mentioned that at the time of collecting the record, no such Power of Attorney was found (para 3.18). 8(D) To this Court, it would appear that the order of the Malatlatdar and ALT, Olpad, dated 06.12.1986, whereby 14A. and 4G. land of the total land held by the petitioners being declared excess had been challenged by the petitioners through their Power of Attorney holder and vide order dated 13.08.1987, said appeal had been rejected by the Deputy Collector. The petitioners having challenged the same after a period of 31 years, there is no ground raised either before the learned GRT and or before this Court that no Power of Attorney had been given by the petitioners and whereas under such circumstances, the petitioners could not be heard to state that they came to know about the order only in the year 2017. 8(E) It also requires to be mentioned here that in the interregnum, the petitioners had challenged the very selfsame order dated 06.12.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar and AlT, Olpad, before the Deputy Collector by preferring Ceiling Appeal No.5 of 2010, which came to be rejected by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 15.07.2011 and which order had been subsequently challenged by the petitioners before the learned GRT by preferring Revision Application No.38 of 2012, which came to be rejected vide order dated 04.12.2012. It also appears that the Deputy Collector had allotted the excess land as per the scheme of the Agriculture Land Ceiling Act vide an order dated 30.08.2012 and whereas the petitioners had challenged the same before the learned GRT by preferring three separate Revision Applications, which Revision Applications also came to be rejected vide order dated 04.10.2012. It appears that against the four orders dated 04.10.2012, the petitioners had preferred Review Applications in the year 2018 and possibly at that time, realizing that the order passed in the challenge mounted by the Power of Attorney dated 13.08.1987 was the principal order, without challenging which the petitioners would not be entitled to claim any relief, the Revision Application had also been filed in 2018. The timeline mentioned hereinabove clearly reflects that the Revision Application was an afterthought, realizing that in absence of any challenge to order dated 13.08.1987, the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever and whereas under such circumstances, it would appear that the grounds given for condoning delay of 31 years, were clearly not sufficient and the findings of the learned GRT that sufficient cause was not made out, appears to be a correct view and whereas this Court is in agreement with the findings of the learned GRT and whereas under such circumstances, no interference is required in the present petition. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12852 of 2024: 9(A) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No.TEN/CS/3/2018 in Revision Application No.TEN/ BS/38/2012. 9(B) It appears that order dated 06.12.1986 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Olpad, declaring 14A. and 4G. of land as excess land, had been challenged by the petitioners independently before the Deputy Collector, Olpad, by preferring Ceiling Appeal No.5 of 2010. The word independently has been used hereinabove only to indicate that the order dated 06.12.1986 had been challenged by the petitioners through a Power of Attorney holder, which challenge came to be rejected vide order dated 13.08.1987 by the Deputy Collector, inspite of the same, the petitioners had independently challenged the order dated 06.12.1986 by preferring Ceiling Appeal No.5 of 2010. 9(C) The Deputy Collector vide order dated 15.07.2011 had rejected the appeal preferred by the present petitioners inter alia on the ground that the petitioners had challenged the order after a period of 24 years, without there being any sufficient cause made out in the Revision Application. The said order had been challenged by the petitioners by preferring Revision Application No. TEN/BS/38/2012 and vide order dated 04.12.20212, the learned GRT had refused to entertain the Revision Application, more particularly on the ground that the petitioners had already challenged the order dated 06.12.1986 through Power of Attorney holder by preferring Ceiling Appeal No.47 of 1987, which came to be rejected vide order dated 13.08.1987. The learned GRT was of the opinion that having challenged the order of the Mamlatdar before the Deputy Collector and having lost, the petitioners did not have any right to file a subsequent appeal against the very selfsame order dated 06.12.1986 and under such circumstances, the Revision Application had been rejected, more particularly by noting that the matter is not required to be filed at all. The petitioners had preferred Review Application in the order dated 04.12.2012 and vide order dated 26.03.2024, the learned GRT had rejected the Review Application inter alia noting that no case for review was made out. 9(D) This Court is in the complete agreement with the findings of the learned GRT on the said aspect. It would clearly appear to this Court that Review Application preferred before the learned GRT in the year 2018, was a ploy by the petitioners to avoid the issue of delay, which would have arisen, if the order of 2012 was directly challenged in the year 2018 before this Court, more particularly since the learned GRT had decided the Revision Application vide order dated 04.10.2012 and by a reasoned order, the Revision Application had been rejected. The petitioners having not challenged the same, for a period of 6 years, were attempting to circumvent the delay by preferring Review Application and whereas the learned GRT had rightly noted that no case for review whatsoever has been made out. As such no ground for review is made out before this Court also, more particularly this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 04.12.2012 in main Revision Application by learned GRT was absolutely correct, since the learned GRT had rightly rejected the Revision Application preferred by the present petitioners, challenging the order dated 15.07.2011 by the Deputy Collector against an order dated 06.12.1986 by the Mamlatdar, without at that time challenging the order dated 13.08.1987 in Ceiling Appeal No.47 of 1987 preferred through Power of Attorney challenging the very order of 06.12.1986. The import of the order of the learned GRT being that the petitioners could not file a subsequent / Second Appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar, being the correct position and whereas since no ground for review before the learned GRT is made out, to this Court, it would clearly appear that the present petition does not require any interference whatsoever. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION Nos.12803 of 2024, 12854 of 2024 and 12856 of 2024: 10(A) By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Review Application Nos.4/2018, 5/2018 and 6/2018 in Revision Application Nos.46/2012, 47/2012 and 48/2012. 10(B) It appears that after the land having been declared as excess from the lands held by the petitioners by the Mamlatdar and ALT, vide order dated 06.12.1986, the petitioners through their Power of Attorney Holder had preferred Ceiling Appeal No.47 of 1987, which came to be rejected vide order dated 13.08.1987. The petitioners had also independently challenged the order dated 06.12.1986 by preferring Ceiling Appeal No.5 of 2010, which came to be rejected by the Deputy Collector on the ground of unexplained delay vide order dated 15.07.2011. 10(C) When the matter stood as thus, the Deputy Collector, Olpad, vide orders dated 13.07.2012 in so far as the three lands, in which the land had declared surplus i.e. Block Nos.478, 128 and 348 situated at Village: Masma, Ta. Olpad, Dist. Surat, had allotted the land to different persons as per the scheme of the Gujarat Agricultural Ceiling Act. It appears that the three allotment orders had been challenged by the petitioners by preferring Revision Application Nos.46, 47 and 48 of 2012 and vide orders dated 04.10.2012, the learned GRT had rejected the Revision Applications inter alia holding that the order of declaring the land surplus, not being interfered with, the land has stood vested in the State Government and therefore, no error was committed by the Deputy Collector in allotting the land to the beneficiaries. The Review Applications had been filed in all three orders dated 04.10.2012 and whereas vide common order dated 26.03.2024, the learned GRT coming to a conclusion that no ground for review was made out, had rejected the said Review Applications. 10(D) Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela for the petitioners would argue that the learned GRT had committed a gross error in not allowing the Review Applications, more particularly according to the learned advocate Mr. Vaghela, the learned GRT was not competent to hear an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of allotment. 10(D) Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela for the petitioners would argue that the learned GRT had committed a gross error in not allowing the Review Applications, more particularly according to the learned advocate Mr. Vaghela, the learned GRT was not competent to hear an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of allotment. Learned advocate would in this regard, draw the attention of this Court to Section 29 of the Gujarat Agricultural Ceiling Act, 1960 and would submit that Section 29(3) inter alia lays down that an order of allotment made by the Revenue Officer would be subject to appeal as provided in Chapter XXXIII of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 187. Learned advocate would thereafter, take this Court to Chapter XXXIII of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, more particularly to Section 203 and would submit that as per the said Section, an Appeal against an order passed by the Revenue Officer, would lie to its superior. Learned advocate would submit that the order in question being passed by the Deputy Collector, the Appeal would ideally lie before the Collector as per Section 29(3) of the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act read with Section 203 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and inspite of the fact that the Revision Application had been preferred by the petitioners themselves before the learned GRT, yet the learned GRT ought not to have entertained said Revision Application since it did not have jurisdiction to try and decide the same. 10(E) Learned advocate in this regard would rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Somabhai Nai and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1987(2) GLH 47 and the decision of a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. Mayur Jethalal Dadhania reported in 2011(0) AIJEL–HC 225977 (Special Civil Application No.10516 of 2021 decided on 28.09.2011). 10(F) Learned advocate would submit that in the above decisions, learned Coordinate Benches of this Court had inter alia observed that an order passed by a wrong forum, would be nullity and would not have any legal sanctity in the eyes of law. Thus, submitting learned advocate would request this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the learned GRT dated 04.12.2012, which had not been reviewed by the learned GRT vide order dated 26.03.2024. Thus, submitting learned advocate would request this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the learned GRT dated 04.12.2012, which had not been reviewed by the learned GRT vide order dated 26.03.2024. 10(G) Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Vaghela, more particularly relying upon the decisions of this Court, while this Court is of the opinion that there could not be any quarrel with the proposition, which has been canvassed by learned advocate relying upon above referred decisions, yet, to this Court, it would appear that present petitions would not require any interference whatsoever. The reasons for such conclusion being that the order of allotment passed by the Deputy Collector dated 30.08.2012, was merely consequential order after the land having been vested in the State Government pursuant to the competent authority not interfering with the order of the Mamlatdar declaring the land being an excess. As per Section 29 of the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960, upon excess land being vested in the State Government, the same could be allotted in accordance with Rules, in the order of priority mentioned in the Section itself. 10(H) While it would appear that the Deputy Collector had exercised powers available to him under Section 29 of the Land Ceiling Act, the undisputed fact being that the lands having been declared as surplus by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Olpad, vide order dated 06.12.1986, has not been interfered with by any authority in successive challenges mounted by the present petitioners. As noted hereinabove, the order dated 06.12.1986 had been challenged initially through a Power of Attorney holder vide Ceiling Appeal No.47 of 1987, which appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 13.08.1987. Subsequently, the order of the Mamlatdar dated 06.12.1986 had been challenged by the petitioners independently before the Deputy Collector by preferring Ceiling Appeal No.5 of 2010, which came to be rejected vide order dated 15.07.2011. Subsequently, the order of the Mamlatdar dated 06.12.1986 had been challenged by the petitioners independently before the Deputy Collector by preferring Ceiling Appeal No.5 of 2010, which came to be rejected vide order dated 15.07.2011. The order dated 15.07.2011 had been challenged by the petitioners by preferring Revision Application No.38 of 2012 before the learned GRT, which came to be rejected vide order dated 04.10.2012 and whereas the petitioners had preferred Review Application in so far as the said order is concerned being Review Application No.3 of 2018, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 26.03.2024, which order has been challenged vide Special Civil Application No.12852 of 2024 and whereas by the present decision, the said writ petition is being rejected. 10(I) On the other hand, the order dated 06.12.1986 had been challenged by the petitioners through their Power of Attorney. The Deputy Collector having rejected the said challenge vide order dated 13.08.1987. The petitioners had preferred Revision Application No.13/18, which came to be rejected vide order dated 01.05.2024 and whereas vide the present order in Special Civil Application No.12816 of 2024, this Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned GRT. Having regard to the above position, since it would appear that this Court has not interfered with the order dated 06.12.1986 by the Mamlatdar declaring the land as being surplus, the petitioners would not have any independent right to challenge the order of allotment, which is nothing but a consequential order. The principal order of declaring the land as surplus being affirmed by this Court, no interference is required with the order passed by the learned GRT in Revision Application Nos.46, 47 and 48 of 2010 vide order dated 04.10.2012 and in the orders dated 26.03.2024 in Review Application Nos. 4, 5 and 5 of 2018 in order dated 04.10.2012 in Revision Applications referred to hereinabove. Hence, no interference is called for in the present petitions. 11. In view of the discussion, reasonings and conclusions in the foregoing paras, no case for interference is made out in any of these petitions and hence, all the petitions are disposed of as rejected in limine.