( 1. ) BY way of present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant ' original petitioner has challenged the oral judgment dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in above-referred Special Civil Application by which the petition was dismissed, confirming the judgment and order dated 29.7.2002 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by which the tribunal has held that the order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal dated 29.5.1976 declaring the present respondents No.1 and 2 as tenants under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was correct one and the decision dated 5.1.1998 passed by the Deputy Collector in appeal filed by the appellant was not a legal one.

( 2. ) THE brief facts arising from the record of the case are as under:

That the Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Nadiad initiated proceedings under Section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the disputed land. After issuing notice to the ancestral of the appellant and respondents, by a detailed order and by recording oral evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the fathers of the present respondents No.1 and 2 were cultivating the land and the mother of the appellant had agreed to accept a sum of Rs.6,018/- towards the value of the land, and accordingly, the amount was paid to the mother of the appellant, and declared him as a 'tenant' under the provisions of the Act, and certificate was issued in favour of fathers of the respondents under Section 32M of the Act.

THE mother of the appellant i.e. Dhanlaxmiben was examined by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in which she has categorically stated that she was widow since last 40 years and the fathers of the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. Harinarayan and Chandrashankar were cultivating the land and she has no objection if the land is sold to them since they were cultivating the land and they were in possession of the land. She has categorically stated that she has not claimed any right as a widow of the original land owner i.e. Shivshanker Nathalal Pandya. Harinarayan and Chandrashankar, fathers of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, were also examined by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in which it has been categorically stated that they were cultivating the land since last twenty five years and they were in possession of the land in question. THEy had also shown willingness to purchase the land at a price which may be determined by the authority. Neither of these two witnesses were cross-examined and, therefore, by orders dated 21.1.1976 and 29.5.1976 the tribunal declared that Harinarayan and Chandrashankar were entitled to purchase the land, and accordingly, order was passed declaring that Harinarayan and Chandrashankar were entitled to purchase the land subject to restriction under Section 43(1) of the Act.

As per the orders and since the amount was paid by Harinarayan and Chandrashankar, an Entry No.137 was mutated in the revenue record showing the details of the orders and the price of the land which was paid by Harinarayan and Chandrashankar to the mother of the appellant.

( 3. ) TO appreciate the contentions raised by the appellant, the pedigree of the entire family is required to be reproduced which is hereinbelow.

( 4. ) THE present appellant Taraben is daughter of Dhanlaxmiben and Shivshanker. It can be seen from the chart that Taraben and Harinarayan are related at 4th Generation which goes upto one Kevalram. Dhanlaxmiben, wife of Shivshanker, through her lifetime had never challenged the orders passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal till she died on 10.8.1993. Taraben who got married in 1954, filed appeal after about 20 years, under Section 74 of the Act before the Deputy Collector by way of Tenancy Appeal Nos.64/96 and 65/96 and challenged the orders passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in 1976.

( 5. ) THE main contention raised by the appellant in appeal was that Dhanlaxmib