K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Trilok J. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Manoj Shrimali, learned advocate for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 29.7.2004 passed by learned revenue tribunal in revision application No. 344 of 1994.

3. So far as factual background involved in present petition is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties that one Smt. Bai Ugari Manilal wife of Manilal Baldevbhai was owner of certain agriculture land. It is claimed that said Bai Ugari mortgaged the land bearing revenue survey No. 4228 to Shri Haribhai Ambalal Raval and Shri Kantibhai Ambalal Raval. The deed of mortgage was executed on 8.4.1924 and the said deed was registered as well. It is further claimed that said transaction/mortgage is registered in revenue record and entry No. 2857 is mutated. It is also claimed that said entry was subsequently verified and came to be certified by the competent authority.

3.1 The petitioners have further claimed that the father of the petitioners was inducted as tenant by said Shri Haribhai Ambalal Raval and Shri Kantibhai Ambalal Raval, i.e. the mortgagee in possession of the suit land. The petitioners have claimed that their father cultivated the land as a tenant of the mortgagee and the petitioners' father remained in possession of the said land and also continued to cultivate the said land.

3.2 It is further claimed that somewhere in 1990, some proceedings under Section 32(O) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agriculture Lands Act were instituted by Mamlatdar and case was registered as tenancy case No. 32-O-736-90. It appears that Shri Kantibhai Ambalal Raval was party respondent in the said proceedings under Section 32(O) of the Act. While the proceedings before the Mamlatdar was pending, one Shri Pravinbhai Bhikhabhai Raval submitted application before the Mamlatdar with the demand that he should be impleaded as party to the proceedings as he has interest in the land in question. The said application submitted by Shri Pravinbhai Bhikhabhai Raval was rejected by the Mamlatdar.

3.3 At this stage, it is relevant to note that when the Mamlatdar rejected the application filed by above named Shri Pravinbhai Bhikhabhai Raval, said Shri Pravinbhai Bhikhabhai Raval did not challenge the order passed by the Mamlatdar. Therefore, the said order and decision by Mamlatdar attained finality.

3.4 It appears that during the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, statements of various persons including present petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 were recorded and the said persons stated before the Mamlatdar that they are tenants of the land in question since long time and they have been cultivating the land and before they started cultivating the land, their father, as a tenant was cultivating the land.

3.5 When Shri Pravinbhai Bhikhabhai Raval submitted application before the Mamlatdar, he supported his application with a copy of pedigree of said Bai Ugari.

3.6 On strength of said pedigree (placed before the Mamlatdar by said Shri Pravinbhai Bhikhabhai Raval), it was claimed that Shri Pravinbhai Bhikhabhai Raval is not son of said Bai Ugari. It is claimed that the Mamlatdar rejected the application filed by said Shri Pravinbhai Bhikhabhai Raval after considering said pedigree.

3.7 The said tenancy case No. 736 of 1998 came to be decided by the Mamlatdar vide order dated 20.6.1991 whereby the Mamlatdar fixed the purchase price of the land in question.

3.8 According to the petitioners, the respondents before the Mamlatdar did not challenge the order dated 20.6.1991 passed by the Mamlatdar. However, the Dy. Collector, Mehsana exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction and issued notice to all respondents. The notice issued by the Dy. Collector was adjudicated and after hearing the parties and after taking into account relevant evidence, Dy. Collector, Mehsana passed order dated 23.12.1993 and confirmed the order dat