( 1 ) THE petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed by the 18-1-1985 and in review application in that very case bearing Review Application no. TE. C. A. No. 22 of 1985 which was decided on 14-2-1986, have approached this Court with this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present litigation can be narrated thus :

( 3 ) SUO motu proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Nadiad under Sec. 32 (1 B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which were numbered as 8 of 1976 in respect of Survey No. 84/1/2 of Kanjri village, admeasuring 6 acres 29 Gunthas. The Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , after considering the cases of rival sides, came to the conclusion that provisions of Sec. 32 (1 B) of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable to the petitioners case. The reasonings adopted by the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , for arriving at this conclusion are that in earlier proceedings under Sec. 32g, it was held that the petitioners could not establish that they were tenants of the land in question. It was also observed that by virtue of enactment of Gujarat Devasthan inam Abolition Act, 1969 which came into force on 15-11-1969 and as on that day, the petitioners were not found to be tenants, they cannot be given benefits of provisions of Sec. 32 (1 B) of the Tenancy Act. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners approached the Deputy Collector by perferring Tenancy appeal No. 55 of 1982. The Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal vide dated 14-12-1982. The order was then carried in revision before the Gujarat Revenue tribunal which also came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 18-1-1985 which was sought to be reviewed and the review application also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14-2-1986 and now, the petitioners are before this Court.

( 4 ) MR. Desai for the petitioners submitted that all the authorities below have committed an error in not considering the material and relevant factors. He submitted that the authorities have relied on earlier observations of the authorities that the petitioners were not found to be tenants of earlier. Mr. Desai submitted that they were proceedings under Sec. 32g, and therefore, the observartions were in respect of possession/tenancy on 1-4-1957; whereas, sec. 32 (1b) contemplates the period between 15-6-1955 and 3-3-1973. It is not the case of the petitioners that they assert this right on basis of they being tenants on 1-4-1957 but according to them, they were tenants who were dispossessed between 15-6-1955 and 1-4-1957, and therefore, they should be given benefit of Sec. 32 (1 B) of the Act. This aspect has not been considered by the authorities below. Mr. Desai submitted that Sec. 32 (1b) was inserted in the Act on 3-3-1973. A new right was given which is sought to be asserted by the petitioners which aspect has been overlooked by the authorities below. Mr. Desai has drawn attention of this Court to Sec. 73 of Gujarat Devasthan inam Abolition Act, 1969 and submitted that by virtue of this provision, provisions of the Tenancy Act as well as of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling act would be applicable even to Devasthan Inam land by virtue of operation of this Act on 15-11-1969. These aspects have not been considered by the authorities below while deciding the right of the petitioners under Sec. 32 (1 B) of the Tenancy Act. He, therefore, submitted that petition may be allowed and the orders impugned should be quashed and set aside and the concerned authorities may be directed to hold inquiry on the question-whether petitioners were tenants who were dispossessed between 15-6-1955 and 3-3-1973 and whether on the basis of that finding, benefit of Sec. 32 (1b) would be available to the petitioners. Mr. Desai contended that the authorities below have relied on the entry in village form 6 wherein, it is observed that the land was surrendered by the petitioners. Mr. Desai contended that if Sec. 32 (1b) is considered,