JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr. Tejas S. Trivedi appearing for the respondents waives service of notice of rule.

2. This group of Civil Revision Applications is arising out of orders dated 28.8.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional Civil Judge, Kalol, Gandhinagar, whereby the applications submitted by original defendant Nos.5 and 6 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code in respective suits came to be rejected.

3. Since common questions of facts and law are arising in this group of matters, as per the submissions of the learned advocates, they were heard together and are being disposed of by present common judgment and order by treating Civil Revision Application No.136 of 2019 as a lead matter.

4. The facts emanating from Civil Revision Application No.136 of 2019 are that original defendant No.5-Emrald Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., the present petitioner herein, entered into a transaction by purchasing the land, which is the subject matter of suit, by registered sale documents, four in number, on 12.5.1982 from the original land owners i.e. fathers of respondent Nos.15 to 17 namely, (1) Sursangji Aataji Thakor, (2) Shanaji Aataji Thakor (3) Virsangji Aataji Thakore and Manguben Aataji Thakor (respondent No.18). The sale deeds have been executed with respect to their 1/4th share of the concerned parcel of lands. This transaction came to be mutated in the revenue record on 30.6.1983 and name of the petitioner was entered as the owner with respect to concerned parcel of lands vide Revenue Entry Nos.5597, 5598, 5599 and 6000. Since then, the petitioner is holding and occupying the land in question. It is further the case of the petitioner that after several years, by projecting differently, a civil suit came to be filed being Regular Civil Suit No. 83 of 2010 by the original plaintiffs. According to the petitioner, clear history has not been mentioned and by concealing material facts, a speculative litigation is generated by filing civil suit. According to the plaintiffs, the land was originally belonging to Bai Shakarbu, the predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Prior to 1963, one Aataji Chaturji Thakor was cultivating the parcel of land as a protected tenant but with respect to this very portion of land, the concerned Mamlatdar, Kalol(Agricultural Tribunal) initiated proceedings under section 32F of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 whereby Aataji Thakor was declared to be a deemed purchaser of the concerned parcel of land by passing an order on 31.12.1976 and the purchase price was fixed at Rs.7551/- with respect to the land in question. In the process, respondent Nos.1 to 4 were served with a notice of the aforesaid proceedings initiated by Mamlatdar under section 32F. The said notice was accepted by Gulamkadar Gulamhusain on behalf of Bai Shakarbu. Despite the fact that the notices were served of the aforesaid proceedings, during the life time, Bai Shakarbu never challenged the said order dated 31.12.1976 and since it was unassailed, Aataji Chaturji Thakor, who was declared as a deemed purchaser, made an application for putting the land to non-agricultural use to the Taluka Development Officer, Kalol on 20.4.1982 and vide order dated 27.4.1982, the Taluka Development Officer granted non-agricultural permission with respect to the land in question subject to payment of a premium of Rs.34,425/- and the said order was also kept as it is and was never challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 4 or by Bai Shakarbu at the relevant point of time. In the meantime, Aataji Chaturji Thakor died intestate, leaving behind respondent Nos.5 to 8 as legal heirs, who inherited the concerned parcel of land but the concerned land was sold by fathers of respondent Nos.15 to 17 and respondent No.18 i.e. Manguben Aataji Thakor by registered sale document on 12.5.1982.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that, all throughout this period, neither Bai Shakarbu nor Gulamkadar Gulamhusain, who accepted the notice on b