JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner-State has assailed the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT/Tribunal) in Review Application No. TEN.C.A.17/2004, wherein and whereby the Tribunal has allowed the review application filed by the private respondent No. 1 and has set aside the order dated 21.09.1999 passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A.100/1997 and accordingly, has restored the order dated 16.01.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector (L.R.) Vadodara in Tenancy Revision Case No. 68 of 1996 and has declared that the respondent No. 2 is not a tenant of the suit land.

FACTS:

2. The agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 373/A situated at Village Savad, Taluka-Dist. Vadodara belonged to respondent No. 3-Education Trust. In the year 1985, the respondent No. 2 filed Tenancy Case No. 68 of 1985 before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara under Section 70-B of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the Tenancy Act”). After holding inquiry, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara declared the respondent No. 2 as the tenant of the suit property vide order dated 01.03.1996.

2.1 The order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodara was taken into suo motu revision by the Deputy Collector (L.R.) in Tenancy Revision Case No. 68 of 1996. After hearing the parties, the District Collector (L.R.) vide order dated 16.01.1997 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Vadodara.

2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 16.01.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector (L.R.) in Tenancy Revision Case No. 68 of 1996, the respondent No. 2 filed revision application before the GRT being Revision Application No. TEN.B.A.100 of 1997, which was allowed by holding that the respondent No. 2 is the tenant of the suit property.

2.3 In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 121 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) for declaration of his ownership over the suit land. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent No. 1 vide judgment and decree dated 05.04.2003. Pursuant to the said decree, Entry No. 3388 has been affected in the revenue record in favour of respondent No. 1. When the petitioner-State came to know about the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2003, it instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 563 of 2004, inter alia, seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2003 is nullity and the same is not binding.

2.4 In the year 2004, the respondent No. 1 filed Review Application No. TEN.C.A.17 of 2004 before the GRT and contended that he is the owner of the suit property in view of the decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) in Regular Civil Suit No. 121 of 2003 and he came to know about the tenancy proceedings in the year 2004. The GRT, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 31.08.2005 allowed the review application filed by respondent No. 1 and quashed and set aside the order passed by the GRT in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A.100 of 1997 dated 21.09.1999 and restored the order passed by the Deputy Collector (L.R.) Vadodara in Tenancy Revision Case No. 68 of 1996 dated 16.01.1997 and declared that respondent No. 2 is not the tenant of the suit land on the ground that Section 70-B of the Tenancy Act is not applicable to the property belonging to an education trust.

2.5 Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 filed an application below Exh.29 in Regular Civil Suit No. 563 of 2004 for dismissing the said suit on the basis of the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the GRT in Review Application No. TEN.C.A.17 of 2004. Civil Judge, after hearing the parties, rejected the plaint in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 vide judgment and decree dated 05.04.2006.

2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2006, the petitioner-State filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 16877 of 2007 before this Court,