( 1 ) ALL these petitions involve identical questions of law and fact. They are directed against the action taken against the petitioners in each case under Sec. 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for brief ). The impugned order passed by the first authority, as affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority, is practically in a cyclostyled form. The impugned decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision is common in all revisional applications. I have, therefore, thought it fit to dispose of all these petitions by this common judgment of mine.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioners in each case have purchased certain parcels of agricultural lands from the respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 some time in 1981. The necessary entries in the Record of Rights were mutated soon thereafter and they were also certified some time in June 1981 in each case. It appears that the Mamlatdar (Record of Rights) at Gandhinagar made report on 31/03/1983 that the purchasers had their agricultural lands beyond the distance of 8 Kms. from the lands purchased by them and were residing beyond 1