The principle of res judicata applies to proceedings before quasi-judicial authorities, and subsequent applications cannot be entertained if the claim has been rejected in a previous order.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms. Samta V. Patel for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent-State.

1.1 Though the notices are served upon private respondent they have chosen to remain absent before this Court when the matter was called out.

2. At the outset upon instructions, learned advocate Ms. Samta Patel makes it clear that though the petitioner is pressing this petition, the petitioner does not press his prayer in respect of order dated 25.10.2016 passed in Tenancy Appeal/SR/62/2009 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform) Gandhinagar.

3. In view of above, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs by way of this petition:

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 9.2.1962 passed in tenancy case no. 374 by Mamlatdar and Krushipanch Kalol and order dated 5.7.2011 passed in Ganot/Appeal/SR/31/2008 by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform) Gandhinagar, order dated 16.7.2014 passed in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/216/11 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in Ganot/Appeal/SR/62/2009 by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform) Gandhinagar and further be pleased to uphold the order dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Mamlatdar and Krushipanch, Kalol in Tenancy Case No. 32-O- 105/07.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the orders dated 9.2.1962 passed in tenancy case no. 374 by mamlatdar and Krushipanch Kalol and order dated 5.7.2011 passed in Ganot/Appeal/SR/31/2008 by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform) Gandhinagar, order dated 16.7.2014 passed in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/216/11 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in Ganot/Appeal/SR/62/2009 by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform) Gandhinagar.

(C) Interim/Ex-parte Ad interim relief in terms of para 14(B) be granted.

(D) Such other and further relief that this Hon’ble Court may deemed and proper in the interest of justice be granted.

4. The brief facts of the case as narrated by learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta is stated as under : The issue pertains to an agricultural land bearing block no. 1481(old Revenue Survey no.1206) situated at Rancharda Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar which was held by one Mr.Bhulabhai Ranchhodbhai and one Mr. Mohanlal was cultivating the land as protected tenant.

5. The present petitioner who is a farmer and according to the petitioner he was cultivating the aforesaid subject land as sub tenant from 1956 till 1966 as tenant. Upon the death of the owner of the land lord Bhulabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel’s death on 11.12.1957 vide entry no.603 dated 13.6.1958, his legal heir Kantibhai Bhulabhai Patel became the owner of the subject land bearing survey no.1206 of village Rancharda.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that Keshavlal Mohanlal was declared as protected tenant vide mutation entry no. 562 (10) & 603 as well as their names appeared in several 7/12 extract for a period from the year 1952 to 1953.

7. The tenant Keshavlal Mohanlal Patel gave the land bearing 1206 to the petitioner for cultivating it from 1956 onwards and at the time when the petitioner was cultivating the land in capacity of sub tenant one Tenancy Case no. 374 was preferred by protected tenant Keshavbhai Mohanbhai was registered as the protected tenant but he showed his unwillingness to purchase the land and therefore, in the Tenancy case no. 374 vide order dated 9.2.1962, the purchase of the land was declared to be ineffective.

8. In the petition though it is not stated but the record indicates that in the year 1989, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 32(O) and sought a declaration to declare him