J.B. Pardiwala, J.

By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

14(a) be pleased to declare that the application filed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent No.1 herein claiming right to purchase the land under the Tenancy Act was not at all maintainable in law and that the whole proceedings are vitiated;

(b) be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside (i) the order dated 22.10.1996 passed by the Mamlatdar, Kamrej in Tenancy Application No.06 of 1995 (Annexure A), (ii) order dated 29.12.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat in Tenancy Appeal No.139 of 1996 (Annexure B) and (iii) order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.B.S.54/1998 (Annexure C) and be pleased to dismiss the application filed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent No.1 herein before the Mamlatdar;

(c) pending admission and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the (i) order dated 22.10.1996 passed by the Mamlatdar, Kamrej in Tenancy Application No.06 of 1995 (Annexure A), (ii) order dated 29.12.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat in Tenancy Appeal No.139 of 1996 (Annexure B) and (iii) order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.B.S.54/1998 (Annexure C) ;

(d) be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The case of the applicants, in their own words, as pleaded in their application, is extracted herein under:

3. The petitioners say that the present petition involves important questions of law as to the interpretation of Sections 2(18), 32(3), 32, 32G and various other provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'). The main question which arises for this Court's consideration is whether the respondent No.1 - Keshavbhai Kalyanbhai who is not personally cultivating the said land can claim any right to get the purchase price determined under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act on the ground that he has become the deemed purchaser as on 01.04.1957. It is submitted that the said Shri Keshavbhai Kalyanbhai - respondent No.1 herein has admittedly gone out of India and has permanently settled in England and has event taken British citizenship. It is submitted that on the plain reading of the definition of Tenant as given in Section 2(18) of the Tenancy Act and the definition of 'personal cultivation' as defined under the Tenancy Act, the said Shri Keshavbhai Kalyanbhai could not have even made an application on 21.09.1995 when he was certainly not cultivating the land and seized to be the tenant. The cultivation by the Power of Attorney Holder cannot be said to be the cultivation by the tenant. The other question which arises is that the petitioner herein who was the tenant before the Mamlatdar had given an application to the effect that question of jurisdiction and the application of the Tenancy Act may be decided as a preliminary issue and though the said point was taken before all the authorities, especially before the Mamlatdar, the Mamlatdar did not decide the said question raised and without following the legal procedure as prescribed under Section 72 of the Tenancy Act and without affording the right of cross-examination to the present petitioner who was the tenant before the Mamlatdar, has decided the case on merits and determined the purchase price. The other question is that admittedly, the landlord Dalpatbhai was declared lunatic and the Nazir of the Court was appointed as a Guardian and that he ceased to be the lunatic only on his death on 29.12.1990. Therefore, the whole basis of the judgment of the Mamlatdar as confirmed by the Deputy Collector and the Tri