Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

These appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the oral order dated 13.6.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.21125 of 2016 and allied matters, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions filed by the present appellants-original petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not having locus standi to file the said petitions.

2. The issue involved in all these appeals is similar and as the learned Single Judge has disposed off the petitions by common oral order, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts stated in Special Civil Application No.21265 of 2016 are recorded, which are as under:

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the owner and occupier of the agricultural land bearing Block No.57 of village Chhatrisa, Taluka Talod District Sabarkantha admeasuring 1- 46-00 Ha. Are. Sq. mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'). The respondent no.1 is a company which is incorporated with the objective of cultivating the agricultural lands with modern techniques. It is alleged that the directors of respondent no.1 represented that they are in need of agricultural land which they want to develop and cultivate with the modern techniques. They will also provide employment to the local agriculturists of the village which will uplift their standard of living. It is also assured that the company will take services of the petitioner by giving him priority. The petitioner therefore agreed to sell the agricultural land to the respondent no.1-company at a low price. It is stated that the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.1-company came to be executed on 30.11.2009 which is also registered and revenue entry no.348 is mutated in the revenue record and is certified.

2.2 It is further stated that the Mamlatdar and ALT, Talod i.e. respondent no.2 initiated the suo motu proceedings under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act') for the breach of Section 63 of the Act on the ground that the respondent no.1-company is not agriculturist and therefore the sale deed executed with regard to the land in question is in violation of the aforesaid provision. Respondent no.2 passed the order on 15.10.2014 and held that the respondent company being a no agriculturist, the purchase of the agricultural land in question is in violation of Section 63 of the Act and therefore the sale is declared as invalid. The land in question is forfeited and vested in the government. Respondent no.2 further directed that the amount of sale consideration shall be recovered from the seller i.e. the petitioner and the same shall be paid to the state exchequer. The respondent no.1 challenged the said order by filing appeal before the Deputy Collector vide Ganot Case No.34 of 2014. The Deputy Collector, Prantij dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 16.7.2015. The respondent no.1, therefore, filed revision application no.TEN/BA/222/15 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the said revision application by an order dated 26.9.2016 and thereby quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT as well as the Deputy Collector.

2.3 The petitioners, therefore, filed the captioned petitions and challenged the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned Single Judge heard all the petitions and passed the impugned common order by which all the petitions came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners are not having locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore the appellants-original petitioners have preferred the present appeals.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. J.V. Japee appearing for the appellants-original petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for respondent no.1.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Japee assailed the