JUDGMENT :

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.

The matter is taken up at the request made by learned advocate Shri G.K. Patel for respondent No.2 who is stated to be more than 86 years' of age and he is not keeping good health.

2. Thakorsaheb Shri Takhatsinhji Jasvantsinhji Thakor is the petitioner, who is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30th August, 2006 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.BA No.285 of 1997 whereby, the Tribunal refused to accede to the request of the applicant of remanding the matter. The operative part of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Tribunal reads as under:

"In view of the above discussion even if the matter is remanded back to Mamlatdar & ALT directing the parties to remain present on specified date, no any other result other than arrived at by way of impugned orders is likely to reach or is likely to come and therefore in the opinion of this Tribunal Opponent No.2 (Gandabhai Ishwarbhai) should not be made to go through the torture of another round of litigation especially when main demand of the applicant to get the purchase price fixed under Section 32G of the Act appears to have been totally satisfied".

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued the matter. He submitted that his main contention is that the petitioner had never been given an opportunity of contending that respondent No.2 herein is not his tenant.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to page No.127 and submitted that order is passed under Section 32- G of Tenancy Act wherein it is stated that respondent No.2 herein is not the tenant.

4.1 Even if it is so stated in the order, it is too late in a day to contend this in light of the discussion which follows hereafter. This page No.127 is dated 21.8.1967. Father of the present petitioner died in 1968. Since then, the petitioner did not take any steps to see that page No.127 is implemented.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that land bearing block No.624 is wrongly included in the subsequent proceedings. He submitted that in the original proceedings under Section 32G of the Act - a copy of which is produced at Annexure-D, page-38, land bearing block No.622 was the only subject matter.

5.1 The contention was required to be raised before the appropriate authority at the appropriate time. This is not the stage wherein this contention can be taken care of. This Court is considering the legality and validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 13.9.1991, the order passed by Deputy Collector dated 19.2.1996 and finally the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 30.8.2006 and hence, the Court refuses to consider the aforesaid contention.

5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in subsequent proceedings under Section 32G at page No.46, Annexure-G, the land bearing Survey No.624 was included and it continued right to the final order of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Annexure-A, page -27. The very fact that the land bearing survey No.624 was included in Ganot Case No.759 of 1988, the petitioner ought to have taken this contention before the appropriate authority at the appropriate time.

5.3 Now when the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT travelled through the appropriate agency right upto Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, to raise this issue is nothing but to delay the matter further.\6. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Patel Sureshbhai Jashbhai v. Patel Satabhai Mathurbhai reported in AIR 1983 SC 648. he invited attention of the Court to paragraph No. 7 of the judgment, which reads as under:

"7. In such a situation an unadjudicated inferential determination of status cannot preclude an enquiry into the status which is a sine qua non for claiming the right in a subsequent proceeding between the parties. Therefore the failure of the landlord to question the sale being declared ineffective on account of the absence