HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

1. Appellant, original petitioner by way of this appeal seeks to challenge order passed by learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2009 in the Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.13067 of 2008; wherein, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal can be summarized

as under:

2.1 The appellant original writ petitioner and his brother, namely, Dayaljibhai Ravjibhai Patel were the joint owners of the land bearing block No.72, admeasuring 2 Hectares 73 Gunthas 51 Ares situated at village: Parujan, Tal. Jalalpore. Dayaljibhai Ravjibhai Patel i.e. brother of the appellant herein transferred his one half (½) share in favour of respondent No.1 vide registered sale dated 21.9.1986; whereas, the share of the appellant herein was given on lease in favour of respondent No.1 for a monthly rent of Rs.200/-vide registered

lease dated 21.5.1986. Record reveals that the said lease deed dated 21.5.1986 was executed by Dayaljibhai Ravjibhai Patel as the Power of Attorney of the appellant herein. Record also reveals that necessary mutation entry No.1276 and 1277 dated 7.10.1986 were effected in the record of rights. Entry No.1276 was with respect to the transfer of ½ share of Dayaljibhai Ravjibhai Patel vide registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 and entry No.1277 was with respect to the lease which was executed by the appellant herein through his Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.1.

2.2 It appears that thereafter some family disputes arose and 3rd brother of the appellant, namely, Haribhai Ravjibhai Patel, approached the Deputy Collector, Valsad alleging that the transactions in favour of respondent No.1 are in violation of Section 2(2), 2(6) read with Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short 'the Act').

2.3 Record reveals that Mamlatdar & ALT held that respondent No.1 as purchaser of the land in question was not holding any agricultural land within the radius of 8 Kms. of the land in question and he, therefore, ordered to restore the possession as per Section 84-C(2) of the Act to the original owner i.e. appellant and his brother Dayaljibhai. Respondent No.1 preferred Tenancy Appeals before the Deputy Collector, Navsari and the appeals also came to be dismissed by common order dated 29.11.2000. Respondent No.1 preferred 2 revision applications being 14/2001 and 15/2001 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide judgment dated 18.1.2006 allowed the revision applications by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Authorities on the ground that suo-motu powers under Section 84-C has been exercised beyond reasonable period of time and also took notice of the fact that in view of the amendment, there was no requirement of having the agricultural land within the radius of 8 Kms. of land in question.

3. The order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 18.1.2006 was challenged by the appellant herein by filing Special Civil Application No.13067 of 2008. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition took into consideration the following aspects:-

I. The transactions were of the year 1986. The proceedings before the revenue authorities were initiated by the brother of the appellant herein on account of some internal disputes in the family and that is how the revenue authorities took cognizance of the transactions said to be in breach of Section 2 (2), Section 2 (6) read with Section 63 of the Act. Learned Single Judge took the view that assuming for the moment that the transactions were in breach of the provision of the Act then in that case, how the appellant herein as the seller of the land in question can be said to be an aggrieved person and what legal right appellant as a seller possesses to challenge the orders passed by the revenue Tribunal? For this purpose, learned Single Judge relied upon two reported judgments of this High Cou