( 1 ) THE petitiones in this petition under Art. 227 of the constitution of India, have challenged the orders Annexures - D, E and F passed against them by the Collector, Mehsana, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Additional secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Gujarat State respectively

( 2 ) ). The facts stated by the petitioners in this petition reveal that the petitioners own and cultivated the land bearing Survey No. 986 Part situated in the sim of village Unjha, Taluka Sidhpur, District Mehsana. Since the petitioners are cultivating this land, it is the say of the petitioners that they are agriculturists within the meaning of the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act. The petitioners also purchased certain lands of village Unava, Tal. Sidhpur of mehsana District at a distance of hardly 2 to 3 kms. from Unjha. It is the case of the petitioners that on the basis of the sale deeds in respect of the said lands, entries were made in the revenue records. However, the Mamlatdar, Sidhpur refused to certify the said entries on the ground that the petitioners were not agriculturists. The Talati of village Unava by his letter dated 23-4-1986 informed the petitioners about the said decision of the Mamlatdar not to certify the aforesaid entries in the revenue records. The petitioners challenged the said decision by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Patan being R. T. S. Appeal No. 95 of 1986. The Deputy Collector, vide his order, Annexure-C, held in favour of the petitioners by observing that the petitioners were agriculturists and were entitled to purchase the lands in dispute. He, therefore, directed the Mamlatdar to certify the entries in the revenue record. It appears that the Collector, Mehsana took up the matter in suo motu revision and questioned the legality of the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The said proceedings were numbered as R. T. S. Revision Application No. 15 of 1988. The Collector, Mehsana by his order dated 20-2-1989 allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the deputy Collector, Annexure D to the petition. The petitioners preferred a Revision application being No. TEN. B. A. 343 of 1989 before the Gujarat Revenue tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 31-8-1989, Annexure-E, held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the said revision application and returned the said revision application to the petitioners for being presented before the appropriate authority. The petitioners, thereafter preferred a Revision application No. S. R. D. Hakapa/masana/ 18 of 1989 before the Additional Chief secretary (Appeal), Revenue Department, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. It was heard by the Deputy Secretary (Appeal), who by his order dated 31-1-1990/1-6-1990 dismissed the said revision application, Annexure-F to the petition, and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Sidhpur for taking proceedings under sec. 84c of the Tenancy Act. As stated above, the petitioners have challenged the orders at Annexures - D, E and F in this petition.

( 3 ) MR. A. J. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Collector as well as Deputy Secretary, Annexures - D and f are illegal and without authority of law inasmuch as the said authorities have decided the status of the petitioners as an agriculturists in R. T. S. proceedings. In the submission of Mr Patel, whether petitioners are agriculturists or not is a question cannot be decided in the proceedings under Rule 108 of the Gujarat Land revenue Rules, 1972. I find considerable substance in the submission of Mr. Patel. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners are occupying and cultivating the lands bearing Survey No. 986 Part, situated in the sim of village Unjha. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners purchased certain lands of village Unava and the distance between Unjha and Unava is only 2 to 3 kms. and is in any way, within the