( 1 ) ETITIONERS unfortunate tenants who have been dragged from one authority to another are told after about 18 years of litigation that though they are deemed purchasers of the land leased to them and though they are illegally deprived of possession of this land they cannot be put back in possession of land because proper proceedings have not been initiated. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (Tribunal for short) has allowed the Revision Application of landlords respondents herein holding that in absence of proceedings under Sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (Act for short) Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal Petlad (A. L. T. for short) could not have directed the landlords to hand-over possession of the land to the petitioners in proceedings under sec. 32g of the Act.

( 2 ) THE chequered history of this petition is as follows: petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Parshottamdas Mathurbhai (the deceased for short ). The deceased was tenant of the land bearing Survey Numbers 486 and 488 of village Sojitra taluka-Petlad in Kheda District (hereinafter referred to as the land ). The A. L. T. initiated proceedings under Sec. 32g of the Act for determining the price of the land payable to the landlord by the tenant. In these proceedings the deceased is alleged to have made statement to the effect that he had handed over the possession of the land to the landlord and that he was not willing to purchase the land. The A. L. T. by its order dated; 17/12/1961 held that as the tenant was not cultivating the land since 7 to 8 years prior to the date of the initiation of the proceedings the proceedings were required to be closed. In this view of the matter the A. L. T. dropped the proceedings under Sec. 32g of the Act. After the death of the deceased the petitioners who are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 610 of 1970 before the Deputy Collector Kheda challenging the order passed by the A. L. T. dropping the proceedings under Sec. 32g of the Act. The Deputy Collector dismissed the petitioners appeal on 10/08/1971 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector went in revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the Revision Application and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector in turn remanded the matter to the A. L. T. on 9/10/1972 for making fresh inquiry under Sec. 32g of the Act. The landlord being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector preferred revision application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal however rejected the Revision Application of the landlord by an order dated: 5/10/1973 After the matter was remanded to it by the Deputy Collector as aforesaid the A. L. T. by an order dated: 13/01/1979 held that the deceased was not found to be in possession of the land in year 1953 and consequently the petitioners could not be held to be the tenants of the land. This view taken by the A. L. T. was confirmed by the Deputy Collector while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dismissing their appeal passed by the Deputy Collector went in revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated: 23/04/1982 allowed the Revision Application filed by the petitioners. The Tribunal held that the tenancy of the deceased continued upto 1961 and that it had not been legally or validly terminated under the Act. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was in possession of the land on the Tillers day i. e. on 1/04/1957 and continued to be in possession thereof till 1961. The Tribunal held that since the tenancy of the deceased was not legally terminated he became deemed purchaser and occupant of the land on Tillers day under Sec. 32g of the Act. It was further held that the petitioners who are the legal heirs and legal represent