( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision dated 17/03/1982 rendered in Revision Application No. TEN B. A. 76/80 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By the impugned decision the Tribunal confirmed the concurrent findings and decisions of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Umergaon in Tenancy Case No. 3042/77 and that of appellate authority i. e. Deputy Collector Valsad in Tenancy Appeal No. 126/78 holding that the respondent being the lawful tenant in respect of the land in question was entitled to get possession of the land which shall be restored to him.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein also filed review application being Revision Application No. TEN C. S. 3/82 before the Tribunal who by its judgment order dated 30/12/1982 dismissed the review application confirming the order passed in the said Revision Application No. 76/80.

( 3 ) A few relevant facts leading to the present petition may be noticed. The respondent was the tenant in respect of the land Survey No. 119/1/2/1 admeasuring O-A 13 Gunthas paiki situated at village Nagvasha Taluka Umergaon District Valsad. In the suo motu inquiry initiated by the Mamlatdar under Section 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (for short the Bombay Tenancy Act) it was found that the name of the respondent was shown as a tenant in the revenue records on the appointed day i. e. 15/06/1955 Therefore Mamlatdar by the order dated 5/01/1978 in Tenancy Case No. 3042 declared the respondent as a tenant of the land in question and further ordered to put him in possession thereof as the respondent-tenant was dispossessed of the land without due process of law. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner herein preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 126 before the Deputy Collector Valsad who by his order dated 25/09/1979 dismissed it and confirmed the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate authority approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by way of aforesaid revision application under Section 78 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Tribunal also dismissed the revision application and confirmed the findings and decisions of the Courts below as aforesaid.

( 4 ) MR. S. H. Sanjanwala learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the proceedings under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy Act were held by the Mamlatdar and by the order dated 28/09/1961 the respondent was not held to be the tenant in respect of the land in question. Therefore it was not open for the Mamlatdar to initiate further inquiry nor he could pass the impugned order at Annexure A. In this view of the matter the impugned order was according to Mr. Sanjanwala barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Mr. Sanjanwala then argued that no inquiry could have been initiated after lapse of unreasonable time since the aforesaid order dated 28/09/1981 under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy Act was passed by the Mamlatdar.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal has considered all the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the petitioner-landlord. In para 8 of its judgment the Tribunal held that considering the effect of the arguments of the learned Advocates and after perusing the records of the Mamlatdar one would feel no hesitation in accepting the plea that entry No. 262 dated 28/06/1968 which was made in pursuance of the order passed by the Mamlatdar in the inquiry held under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy Act which was held in the year 1961 was not a legal order in view of the fact that the tenant was not willing to purchase the same. The Mamlatdar could have dropped the proceedings. Instead he decided that there was no relationship of the tenant and landlord though the name of the respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue records. In this view of the matter both the Courts below concurrently held that the aforesaid order dated 28/09/1961 was not legal and proper.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal has also recorded that the res