( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed by the landlords against the order of the District Deputy Collector dated October 16 1964 setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal dated July 4 1963 on the preliminary question whether the applications filed before the Mamlatdar were barred by limitation. The petitioners are the Ex-Inamdars of two villages in Chorasi Taluka in Surat District. By the order dated May 8 1957 of the Assistant Collector under sec. 5 (2) of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act 1952 the petitioners were held to be occupants keeping at the same time the question open as to whether these respondents were permanent or protected tenants for which purpose they were asked to approach the competent authority under the Tenancy Act. The tenants filed an application on June 19 1962 for getting the nature of their tenancy determined on the ground that they were permanent tenants. The tenants had filed these applications stating that time was fast approaching for determining the purchase price and therefore it was necessary for them to get declarations as to their status. In those applications the petitioners applied on May 8 1963 for deciding the preliminary issue of limitation. The Mamlatdar who was the Lands Tribunal gave the parties a fortnights time to adduce necessary evidence and he determined this issue of limitation holding that these applications were time barred as they were not filed within six months from May 8 1957 when the cause of action accrued. The Deputy Collector has set aside the said orders and has remanded the matters to the Mamlatdar for deciding the original application on merits according to law. It is this order which is challenged in all these petitions. All the petitions involve common questions of law and facts and therefore they are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) AT the outset Mr. Vakil vehemently argued that it is well settled that the Mamlatdar has no jurisdiction to give declaration as the declaratory relief can be given only by a civil Court and therefore the applications were wholly incompetent before the Mamlatdar in these cases. Mr. Vakil in this connection relied upon my decision in Ambalal Ranchhod v. Shamjibhai X G. L. R. 197. That decision could not help Mr. Vakil. I have pointed out therein that sec. 70 of the Tenancy Act mentions duties and functions to be performed by the Mamlatdar for the purposes of the Act In various sub-clauses of sec. 70 various questions are mentioned which are to be decided by the Mamlatdar. But no where the Legislature has used any phraseology to suggest that the Mamlatdar shall give such a declaration. Following the decision in Bai Achhuba v. Kalidas A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 651 I have held at page 205 that even though the Mamlatdar would be deciding the question whether the person is a tenant or not the decision would be a finding of the question left to the Mamlatdar by the Legislature within his exclusive jurisdiction and it would not amount to any formal declaration which only the civil Court could give. In that case also the application before the Mamlatdar was held to be competent. In the present case also even though the applicants have prayed for a declaration as to their status the application substantially is for having a decision of the Mamlatdar on the question whether the applicants were permanent tenants as alleged by them or protected tenants as contended by the petitioners landlords. This dispute is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar and had been rightly entertained under sec. 70 (b) of the Tenancy Act. Therefore the first objection raised by Mr. Vakil must fail. Even on the question of limitation I have pointed out in that decision relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rukhamabai v. Late Laxminarayan 1960 S. C. R. 353 that there would be no compulsory cause of action for filing an application under sec. 70 (b) until there was an infringement or at least a clea