( 1 ) ALL the matters are finally heard on the question of alternative remedy available to the petitioners for challenging the orders passed by the authority under The saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement And Agricultural lands Ordinance , 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the ordinance") read with Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). As the common question is involved, all the matters are being dealt with by the common judgment.

( 2 ) SPECIAL Civil Application Nos 14377/03, 15069/03 and 15066/03 are preferred by the petitioners challenging the orders dated August 29, 2003 passed by the respondent no. 2-Dist. Collector, Bhavnagar under the Ordinance and special Civil Application No. 17421/03 is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order, dated 14. 3. 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Dist. Collector, Bhavnagar under the Ordinance and the Special Civil Application no. 15343/03 is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order, dated 14. 8. 02 passed by the Dist. Collector, rajkot under the Ordinance. By all the impugned orders referred to hereinabove the transactions for purchase of land are held to be invalid and consequently the orders are passed for summary eviction, and also in some cases for forfeiture of the land.

( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Mangukia, Mr. A. J. Patel with Ms. Avani mehta, Ld. advocates for petitioners and Mr. Desai, Ld. AGP for the authorities.

( 4 ) IT is an admitted position that the impugned orders have been passed by the District Collector under the Ordinance except in Special Civil Application no. 15343/03 initially order was passed by the dy. Collector and the State carried the matter before the dist. Collector under section 211 of the Bombay Land revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and the Dist. Collector has set aside the order of the dy. Collector and has found the sale is invalid and passed order for summary eviction and also for forfeiture of the land in question. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that as the forum provided under the Ordinance or under the Act for challenging the order under the Ordinance is not available, the petitioners have no option but to approach this court by preferring the petitions invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Mr. Desai, Ld. AGP appearing for the State authorities has contended that as per the decision of the gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the case of Shri Abbasali kadarbhai vs The Collector, Junagadh and another reported in 91 GRTLR 144 the revision before the Gujarat Revenue tribunal is competent and the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy. The learned counsel for the petitioners also alternatively contended that the view taken by the tribunal in the aforesaid decision of Shri abbasali Kadarbhai (supra) is not in consonance with the decision of the Full Bench of the Revenue Tribunal in case of Soni Devchand Ranchhod and Co vs Sandhi Punja Natha reported in 19 GRTLR 130 wherein the view taken is that the tribunal will have no jurisdiction and the revision can be preferred before the State Govt under section 211 of the Code.

( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid controversy on the question of forum and alternative remedy in all the matters the question requires to be considered as to whether there is any alternative remedy available to the petitioners, if yes, before whom?

( 6 ) IF the transaction is with non-agriculturist for for sale of land, such transaction is barred by the provisions under section 54 of the Ordinance. As per the provisions of section 75 of the Ordinance, in the event such transaction is found to be invalid or barred as per the Ordinance by the competent authority, there are enabling powers with the authority to summarily evict the persons who have continued to be in possession of such land. Section 75 of the Ordinance, reads as under:"75. SUMMARY eviction:- Any person unauthorisedly occ