JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

The appellants - original writ petitioners have preferred this Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and order dated 28th June 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.6168/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground of locus standi of the appellants herein to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Appeal can be summarised as under:

(1) Appellants are the original owners of the disputed land in question.

(2) Appellants sold the said land by way of registered sale deed in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 dated 31st May 1990.

(3) After the said transfer, the names of respondent nos.4 and 5 were mutated in the revenue record. Entry also came to be certified.

(4) Record reveals that thereafter, respondent nos.4 and 5 transferred the said land in favour of respondent nos.6 to 12 by registered sale deed dated 2nd May 1994. After the said transaction, names of respondent nos.6 to 12 were mutated in the revenue record.

(5) It appears that after a period of about 8 years from the date of transfer of the land in question by the appellants herein, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Ahmedabad initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 84(C) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act') on the ground that the transfer in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 was in breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act.

(6) The Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi passed an order dated 30th March 2007 against respondent nos.4 & 5 and respondent nos.6 to 12 and held that the transfer in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 is illegal and the same was in breach of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act. As the transfer by the appellants herein in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 was declared to be invalid, automatically the transfer in favour of respondent nos.6 to 12 by respondent nos.4 and 5 also was rendered invalid.

(7) Record reveals that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi dated 30th March 2007, appeal under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act was preferred before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) and the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) by judgment and order dated 29th July 2006 quashed and set-aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi for fresh consideration.

(8) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) dated 29th July 2006, respondent nos.6 to 12 herein preferred Revision Application No.TEN/BA/214/2008 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, which came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 10th July 2009, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) and the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi dated 30th March 2007 passed under Section 84(C) of the Tenancy Act.

(9) Against this order passed by the Tribunal dated 10th July 2009, the appellants herein - original petitioners preferred Review Application being TEN/CA/34/2009, which also came to be rejected by the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 29th January 2010.

(10) Against these orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 10th July 2009 and 29th January 2010 respectively, the appellants herein - original land owners preferred petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge refused, and to our mind very rightly, to entertain the petition at the instance of the appellants herein who sold the land way back in the year 1990 after pocketing the sale consideration.

3. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition on the ground that the appellants have no locus standi and, therefore, no relief can be granted in favour of a transferor who himself