ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Learned Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department – respondent no.1 in Appeal No. MVV/GNT/GDHN/06 of 2019 whereby while rejecting the revision application preferred by the applicant of that application who is the respondent no.3 herein, the Learned Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department – respondent no.1 herein quashed and set aside the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Gandhinagar in Tenancy Case No. 32/(P)/2-C/01 of 2019 and thereafter, directed that the proceedings under section 32 P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act be carried out denovo, after giving wide publicity to the said proceedings and after examining the record as per the existing rules, regulation and policy of the Government and thereby, remanded back to the case of the Mamlatdar and ALT Gandhinagar. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petitioners have challenged the same, by way of the present petition.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that there is a land bearing survey no. 945/2a+3a+4a paiki admeasuring 7790 sq. mtrs. situated at village: Uvarsad, Taluka and District:- Gandhinagar. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land was cultivated by the ancestor of the petitioners namely Suraji Savaji in capacity of the tenant and therefore, he was declared as permanent tenant by Mamlatdar vide order dated 27.11.1947 and mutation entry no.3207 dated 20.04.1948 was mutated in the name of ancestor of the petitioners. However, thereafter, the proceedings under section 32 G of the Tenancy Act were initiated and the ancestor of the petitioners was asked as to whether he was desirous of purchasing the land in question. According to the petitioners, as the ancestor of the petitioners Suraji Savaji has expired in the year 1960, whereas the proceedings took place thereafter, and therefore, the proceedings were conducted against the dead person and entry no. 5579 dated 15.03.1967 was mutated. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 32 G were conducted and Tenancy Case No. 1808 of 1998 which was decided on 17.02.1988. However, the aforesaid order is not annexed along with this petition but reference of the same can be seen from the revenue entry which is at page no. 46 of the petition. Thereafter, the possession of the land was taken over by the State Government under Section 32 P (4) of the Tenancy Act and entry no. 7984 dated 29.02.1988 was mutated. It is the case of the petitioner that after the government took over the possession, the land was to be disposed of under the provision of section 32P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act. However, the said proceedings were initiated belatedly in the year 2013 and therefore, once again the possession was taken over from the petitioner under section 32 (P) (4) of the Tenancy Act. Vide order dated 08.10.2013 passed in Mam/Ganot/V.1056 of 2013. Learned Mamlatdar and ALT directed to take over the possession of the land in question and accordingly on 30.10.2013, panchnama was drawn and the possession of land in question was taken over.

3. Thereafter, proceedings under section 32P (2) (C) of the Tenancy Act were contemplated under Rule 21 (1) of the Act on 28.01.2014 and Mamlatdar fixed the purchase price of land in question at Rs.1162/-, the petitioner being the legal heirs of deceased Suraji Savaji who claimed to be original tenant had applied for such grant of the land in question on 11.02.2014 and after a period of 5 years, the Mamlatdar and ALT vide order dated 16.01.2019 has allotted the land in question to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner paid the purchase price which was fixed by the Mamlatdar at Rs.1162/- and the land in question was allotted to the petitioner for cultivation under restrictions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Thereafter, the aforesaid proceedings were taken into Suomoto review and upon s