ORDER : 1. The present Misc. Civil Application is filed for review of an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.13904 of 2014 dated 08.12.2022. By the order sought to be reviewed, the petition filed by the applicant against the order of the G.R.T. in the Revision Application and also a Review Application therein came to be rejected by this Court. 2. The main ground for review application is an order dated 15.03.1969 of learned Mamlatdar and ALT which was available with the petitioner later on and because of which res-judicata would apply. Therefore, all the proceedings thereafter in favour of the respondents herein have to be declared as nullity. 3. The review application inter alia prays that:- “B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to review the judgment dated 08.12.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No.13904 of 2014, and further may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction, quashing and setting aside (i) the order dated 30/4/1993 passed by the Ld. Mamlatdar & ALT, determining the purchase price of the Lands bearing Survey No.830 and 839; (ii) the order dated 22.03.1995, passed by the Ld. Dy. Collector (L.R.) in Appeal No.130/1993 and (iii) the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/298/95, along with the order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Ld. Tribunal in Review Application No.05 of 2012;” 4. The Special Civil Application No.13904 of 2014 was filed with following reliefs:- “(A) Your Lordships be graciously pleased to admit and allow this petition and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order Annex. H dtd. 30/4/93, Annex. I dated 22/3/1995, Annex, J dated 22/11/2011 and Annex. N dated 5 th July, 2012, in the interest of justice and an appropriate writ, direction or order be directed to be issued to the respondents in that behalf. (B) Consequently it be held that the order darted 15/3/69 has attained finality Under Sec. 32-0 and therefore, all subsequent orders passed Under Sec. 70(B) are without jurisdiction and not enforceable against the petitioners in the interest of justice. (C) Any other order or orders as deemed just be also passed. (B) Consequently it be held that the order darted 15/3/69 has attained finality Under Sec. 32-0 and therefore, all subsequent orders passed Under Sec. 70(B) are without jurisdiction and not enforceable against the petitioners in the interest of justice. (C) Any other order or orders as deemed just be also passed. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of ‘this petition, Your Lordships be graciously pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the impugned orders dated 30/4/93, 22/3/95, 22/11/11 and 5/7/12 at Annex. H, I, J and W respectively in the interest of justice and an appropriate writ, direction or order be directed to be issued to the respondents in that behalf.” 5. The order dated 08.12.2022 in Special Civil Application No.13904 of 2014 was challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.13595 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.07.2023 as under:- “1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners seeks and is permitted to withdraw this Special Leave Petition as the petitioners want to move an appropriate application before the High Court along with the certified copy of order dated 15.03.1969, passed by the Additional Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, City and Daskroi Taluka, Ahmedabad. 2. Permission as prayed for, is granted. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. 4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 6. The applicants filed Special Civil Application No.16692 of 2023 before this Court, which was also withdrawn without expressing anything on merit by an order dated 25.09.2023. Thereafter, the present application is filed. 7. Learned advocate for the applicants contended that main contention of the applicants vide order dated 15.03.1969, the Ld. Mamlatdar & A.LT. had closed/dismissed proceedings under Section 32 -Q of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, which were instituted by one Bakoreji Somaji. It is submitted that the order of dismissal dated 15.03.1969, passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. had attained finality since it was never challenged by Bakoreji Somaji. 8. It is submitted that the first impugned order under challenge in the captioned SCA is the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Ld. Mamlatdar & ALT, whereby the Ld. Mamlatdar & ALT has been pleased to fix a purchase price of the Lands bearing Survey No. 830 and 839. 8. It is submitted that the first impugned order under challenge in the captioned SCA is the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Ld. Mamlatdar & ALT, whereby the Ld. Mamlatdar & ALT has been pleased to fix a purchase price of the Lands bearing Survey No. 830 and 839. It is submitted that the said order is passed upon an application by the present private Respondents, i.e. legal heirs of Bakoreji Somaji, even though the Ld. Mamlatdar & A.L.T. had already dismissed the application of Bakoreji Somaji for price fixation vide order dated 15.03.1969. Therefore, the proceedings culminating into order dated 30.04.1993 were not maintainable, being barred by res judicata. 9. As against this, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that once a remedy of appeal is already been exhausted, the Review Application is not maintainable. It is further submitted that mere repetition through different counsel of old and overrule arguments cannot create a good ground for review. The applicant failed to establish that the alleged evidence sought to be produced for review could not be produced inspite of reasonable care and due diligence on its part. The document which is known to the applicant since 1969 is sought to be produced in the year 2023 and expects the court to reconsider the petition as a whole, which is beyond the scope of review, and there is no mistake apparent on face of record calling for review. At the first instance the applicants made an application to Mamlatdar and ALT since 16.10.1990 wherein the dispute has been initiated time and again the order dated 15.03.1969 has been referred to and relied upon and is disputed since 1990. Thus, the applicants are aware about the order and ought to have obtained certified copies or had an opportunity to obtain the order dated 15.03.1969. Thus, the order dated 15.03.1969 is not a new evidence or an evidence which may not be available at the time of series of proceedings before the Lower Court as also this Court. 10. It is submitted that Special Civil Application No. 13904 of 2014 was filed by the applicant on 10.09.2014. The order has been referred to and has been enlisted as the first Item of list of events in the petition itself. 10. It is submitted that Special Civil Application No. 13904 of 2014 was filed by the applicant on 10.09.2014. The order has been referred to and has been enlisted as the first Item of list of events in the petition itself. The matter has been disposed of on 08.12.2022 after 74 adjournments at admission level in the matter as is appearing from the status report. The attempt to obtain the certified copy dated 15.03.1969 after the institution of S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 13595 of 2023 itself is a bad ground. At the first instance being aggrieved by order dated 8.12.2022 in S.C.A. No. 13904 of 2014 (having tenure of more than 8 years) the applicant filed S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 13595 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After the institution of SLP, an attempt has been made to procure the certified copy of the order dated 15.03.1969. It was sought to be placed on the record by filing application seeking permission. Thereafter the perusal of order at Annexure-C, Page No. 45/46 reveals that the counsel seeks permission to withdraw SLP. The reason was the applicant wanted to file an application before the High Court, (nature of application not specified). Thus, the order reveals that the SLP has been filed and for making an appropriate application SLP has been withdrawn. Nothing beyond that. An attempt on the part of applicant that the Supreme Court has granted permission/leave to file review application cannot be conceived. 11. Thereafter, the applicants filed Special Civil Application No. 16692 of 2023 before this Court on 13.09.2023 . The learned Counsel sought permission to withdraw the Special Civil Application. None of the order reveals the opinion of the Court that the permission to file review has been granted. However, by clever drafting an attempt is made to show that the permissions have been granted to permit the applicants to file review application. Such attempt is misconceived. The Supreme Court granted permission to withdraw SLP on 17.07.2023. Special Civil Application 16692 of 2023 came to be filed on 13.09.2023 and came to be disposed of on 25.09.2023 and the present application has been filed on 19.10.2023 Thus, the time span from 08.12.2022 to 19.10.2023 has been conveniently managed which may not be a good ground even for condonation of delay for Second Round of litigation. It is not a case of Review/recall as contemplated under law. It is not a case of Review/recall as contemplated under law. It is a matter, where at admission stage Special Civil Application No.13904 of 2014 lasted for 74 adjournments more than 8 years, where an Appeal has been preferred before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and it came to be withdrawn. Second Round of litigation by Special Civil Application No. 16692 of 2023 and it came to be withdrawn. and this is a new gesture after passing of more than 1 year from the order dated 8.12.2022. The present application is filed which is nothing but a strategic attempt to resurrect the litigation. 12. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. On one hand, the applicants relied on the order of Mamlatdar dated 15.03.1969 in the Special Civil Application, but on the other hand such an order was never produced on record. Alongwith the petition, only typed copy was produced and then in affidavit in rejoinder xerox copy of the order was produced. 13. Surprisingly, though the applicants now state that the certified copy of the very order is now available. However, there is no explanation either by the applicants or even by the State Government about the existence of such order during the entire revenue proceedings as to how the order dated 15.03.1969, surfaced on the record, particularly, when the revenue record from 03.09.1956 was available with the Government record, but reference has never been made to the order dated 15.03.1969. The Court has perused the entire set of revenue record produced alongwith the affidavit of the State. 14. The only explanation offered in para-5 of the affidavit of Collector is as under:- “5. As per the direction given by this Hon'ble court, the deponent herein has produced the certified copy of the order dated 15.03.1969 passed by Mamlatdar & ALT along with the proceedings. It is submitted that the office of the Mamlatdar & ALT has the original copy of the order dated 15.03.1969 alongwith the proceedings but the same is in dilapidated conditions” 15. Despite the aforesaid affidavit, the Court did not find the order dated 15.03.1969 annexed alongwith the affidavit at Annexure-R1. The Court had therefore, ordered to seal the record of the revenue authority and custody was kept with the High Court Registry. 16. Despite the aforesaid affidavit, the Court did not find the order dated 15.03.1969 annexed alongwith the affidavit at Annexure-R1. The Court had therefore, ordered to seal the record of the revenue authority and custody was kept with the High Court Registry. 16. The Court does not find any sufficient explanation as to how the order dated 15.03.1969 in its original resurfaced all of a sudden, after approximately 55 years. 17. In the aforesaid fact situation, the Court is inclined to accept the argument of the respondents that the present applicants by way of filing application seeking review the order dated 08.12.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13904 of 2014 and further seeks to setting aside the order dated 30/04/1993 passed by Ld. Mamlatdar & ALT, and order dated 22.03.1995 passed by the Ld. Dy. Collector (L.R.) in Appeal No. 130/1993 and the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Ld. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/298/1995 along with order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Ld. Tribunal in Review Application No.05 of 2012 by averring sole ground of producing the Certified Copy of the Order dated 15.03.1969 passed by the Ld. Mamlatdar & ALT which not permissible under the scope of Review and it amounts to gross abuse of process of law. The present review is not maintainable as, the contentions in the Application do not fall within the purview of the Review. The present application is filed on the averment of discovery of evidence viz. certified copy of order dated 15.03.1969, answer to same, it is submitted that, it is settled principle that, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review, the party seeking review has also to show that, such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produce before the court earlier. However, in the facts of the case, it is not the case of the applicants that, they were not in knowledge, therefore, review provision is not to give second inning to the party, who has lost the case because of their own negligence. 18. It is also surprising how the department has conducted itself in this episode. The issue was being contested tooth and nail at various levels. 18. It is also surprising how the department has conducted itself in this episode. The issue was being contested tooth and nail at various levels. Before the Special Civil Application was filed by the applicants, the case had traveled back and forth within the revenue authority from Mamlatdar and ALT to GRT and in all five final orders were passed at various stages and the State at no stage is aware or placed the order dated 15.03.1969 on the record and even till the final decision, the order dated 15.03.1969 has not seen the light of the day. 19. It is only after the disposal of the Special Civil Application that the certified copy of the order surfaces and the only explanation offered is as reflected in the preceding paras which is hardly acceptable and shrouded with suspicion of foul play. Such practice is deprecated. 20. On the merits to the extent that how the order dated 15.03.1969 affects the rights regarding the land in question, in the opinion of the Court, the present litigation started with the claim of the private respondents being a protected tenant willing to purchase the land being a ‘Tiller’ on the ‘Tillers day’. The provision under Bombay Land Revenue Code provides for an entire exercise to be conducted which includes notices to all concerned carrying out Panch Kyash of the existing situation, which admittedly has been carried out more than once as the case was remanded back from the stage of appeal/revision to the first authority i.e. Mamlatdar and ALT and the exercise has been carried out twice over. Therefore, merely production of an order dated 15.03.1969 of the Mamlatdar and ALT will not set at naught the proceedings undertaken by the Revenue authorities on the basis of the revenue record as it existed. 21. The revenue authority having undertaken the exercise more than once which has resulted in favour of the respondent- agriculturist, the attempt now made is to set the clock back to 1969 after these many years where the rights of the respondent qua the agricultural land have been crystallized by due process. 22. The Court also does not deem it fit to review its order where the basis is an order of 1969 which was never before any revenue authorities in six different revenue proceedings which ultimately came to be decided by this Court under the order under review. 22. The Court also does not deem it fit to review its order where the basis is an order of 1969 which was never before any revenue authorities in six different revenue proceedings which ultimately came to be decided by this Court under the order under review. Therefore, none of the revenue authorities had an occasion to deal with the order of 1969 and therefore, straightway making such order of 1969 as a base to set at naught all the proceedings including the order under review is not desirable. 23. The record seized by the Court under order dated 20.09.2024 is ordered to be returned to the office of the deponent to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against the erring on the issue of the order dated 15.03.1969 surfaced on the record after a period of 55 years and bring logical conclusion to it. 24. In view of the reasons aforesaid, the present application is hereby dismissed . Notice is discharged.