ORDER :

1. By way of this petition the present petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:

“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the petition; AND

B.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd.03.06.2017 passed by the Ld.Member G.R.T., in relation to the agricultural land of S.no. 1159 (New S. No.1252) situated Mouje/Village: Vanch, Ta.Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad; AND

C.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the impugned order dtd.03.06.2017 passed by the Ld.Member, G.R.T., in relation to the land of S.no. 1159 (New S. No.1252) situated Mouje / Village: Vanch, Ta.Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad during the pendency and final disposal of this petition; AND

D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Sub-Para (C) pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition; AND

E.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be please to pass such other and further orders may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the agricultural lands of survey no. 1159 (New Survey No.1252) situated Mouje / Village: Vanch, Ta.Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad were running in the name of Bhalabhai Mathurbhai in the capacity of administrator of Ramji Mandir and name of the petitioner was appearing in the capacity of tenant in relation to land of survey no.1159 (New Survey No.1252).

2.2 In the year 1994, one Chimanbhai Chhababhai made an application to the Mamlatdar & ALT and prayed for deletion of word ‘in the capacity of administrator of Ramji Mandir’ from the revenue entries. In those proceedings, the petitioner was also one of the parties. It is stated in the petition in para:B on page:5 of the petition that in the year 1962 all the cases of tenants were disposed of and, therefore, their names were removed from the record of rights.

2.3 Pursuant to above referred application before the Mamlatdar & ALT, case was registered as Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994 and on the basis of erstwhile tenants of the land in question, who in the year 1994 were also not tenants of the land in question, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed an order dated 15.05.1995 holding that in view of statement of the witnesses, the name of Chimanbhai Chhababhai be entered in the revenue record as occupier and the word ‘as administrator of Ramji Temple’ be removed from the revenue record.

2.4 The aforesaid order dated 15.05.1995 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994 was taken into suo motu revision before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals), Ahmedabad vide Tenancy Case No.557 of 2003 and vide order dated 18.11.2014, the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals), Ahmedabad quashed the order dated 15.05.1995 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994 and direct to mention the word ‘ in capacity of administrator of Ramji Temple’ in the revenue record. Thereafter aforesaid order was challenged before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by one Savitaben Wd/o. Kantibhai Bhalabhai and Madhubhai Laljibhai Patel and in that Revision Application petitioner was not joined as party respondent. The Revision Application was numbered as TEN / BA/ 17 of 2015 and ultimately vide order dated 03.06.2017 said Revision Application was allowed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal qua the applicants of that Revision Application only in respect of Survey No.1168, 1169 and 1159. The said Revision Application was allowed on the ground that Deputy Collector has exercised powers conferred under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act beyond the period of one year. Since according to the petitioner as the petitioner was not joined as party respondent in the aforesaid Revision Application and by allowing aforesaid Revision Application, the revisionists of that Revision Application were held to be occupier of the survey numbers mentioned in the order, the petitioner interest would directly get affected, the p