K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prachchhak, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Oza, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1.1-1.2 and Mr. Mehta, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 12 to 14. Though served no one has entered appearance for respondent Nos. 2 to 11.

2. In present petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 22.6.2007 passed by learned Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN/BS/97/98.

3. So far as factual background is concerned the petitioner has averred and stated that:-

"3. The petitioners say that the father of respondent No. 1-Shri Shukkarbhai Kikabhai Patel along with Jaisingbhai Shukkarbhai Patel and Amrutbhai Shukkarbhai Patel made an application before the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Land Tribunal on 4th December 1989 under Section 70(B) of the said Act. In the said Tenancy Case No. 70(B).7875/89 it was contended by the father of present respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 and his brother that they are cultivating the land of Block No. 538 and 692 of Village Navera since the last 35 years and they are in possession of the said land. The said applicants claimed that they are growing Dangar, Podra, Tuval etc. and also taking winter crop. They claimed that they were sharing the crop with the original owners. They also claimed that they are paying the land revenue since the year 1974. They claimed that as they are threatened by the original owners as not to cultivate the land they are compelled to file the said application dated 4.12.1989 under Section 70(B) of the said Act. The said applicants had also filed an application dated 13.12.1989 under Section 70(NB) of the said Act praying that injunction against the original owners restraining them from entering upon and/or breaching their possession of the land in question. The Mamlatdar & ALT had recorded the evidence of Shri Shukkarbhai Kikabhai Patel, father of present respondent No. 1. He claimed that he is raising grass and cutting the same and is also taking care of baval trees which grows on the land. In his oral deposition he said that payment of revenue is from the year 1980. The evidence of Shri Mohanbhai Morarbhai was also recorded on behalf of the owners and he had clearly stated that there is no name of the applicants at any point of time in village from 7/12 and that their case claiming injunction against the original owners has no basis. He had further stated that the land in question is already sold to Shri Ramanlal Zinalal Desai by sale deed dated 13.12.1989 and possession is also handed over to the purchaser on behalf of the original owners. It was further stated that therein that the purchaser has levelled the land and cut the trees and that levelling is down by the purchaser. He pointed out that the original owners have nothing to do with the land in question as title and possession is already handed over to the purchasers. The petitioners say that it is pertinent to note that the land was sold and possession was handed over to the purchaser on 13.12.1989 and immediately thereafter, an application under Section 70(NB) of the said Act was preferred against the original owners.

4. The petitioners say that the Mamlatdar & ALT also recorded evidence of Shri Rameshbhai Ramanbhai in the case under Section 70(B) of the said Act. Said Shri Rameshbhai Ramabhai, who is one of the original owners clearly stated in his statement that the original owners, who are respondents No. 1 to 9 in the application under Section 70(B) of the said Act have already sold the land to Shri Ramanbhai Zinabhai, who is the owner as in the year 1991. He also stated that the original owners were cutting grass from the lands in question as it was a "ghasia" land and that sometimes they were employing labourers to get grass. He pointed out that for some years, paddy was grown in Block No. 692. However, since last three years, i.e. 1989 to 1991 only grass is grown on Block No. 692. He pointed out that the purchaser, Shri Ramanbhai Zinabhai is the owner and occupant