The court affirmed that previous decrees extinguished the appellants' tenancy rights, and their subsequent claims constituted an abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. There is a sick note of one of the learned advocates appearing for appellant no. 1.4. The other appellants are represented by Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate and other advocates. There is no reason to adjourn the matter as the appellants have common interest and are represented by other advocates.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Special Civil Application No. 16224 of 2014, setting aside the order dated 10.09.2014, holding that the application filed by the respondents, viz. the appellants herein for mutating their names as heirs of the original tenant was nothing but a gross misuse of process of law.

3. The respondent no.1 viz. the Mamlatdar & ALT, Dahod had allowed the said application misusing his power under the guise that the revenue court had not passed any order for deleting the names of the predecessor of the respondents from the revenue record. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar is not only in utter disregard of the provisions of the Revenue Act but is also in utter disregard of the order passed by the Apex Court. The Mamlatdar had tried to overreach the order of the Apex Court by passing the impugned order for which serious note has been taken by the learned Single Judge. It was held that the rights of the parties stood determined and concluded by the Apex Court and it was not open for the original respondents no.3 to 8 to reagitate their claim for tenancy rights. It was also noted that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the Mamlatdar for passing an illegal order overreaching the judgment of the Apex Court.

4. As noted by the learned Single Judge, this case has a checkered history. The land bearing Survey no. 533, subject matter of dispute, was sold out to two persons namely, Chottalal Mansukhlal and Punamchand Shivlal Modhia on 25.02.1939 by the original owner, viz. Modia Mansukhlal Raiji. Mr. Punamchand Shivlal Modia, after payment of full sale consideration, thereafter, sold the land to Nayak Mansingji Mokamji. The original owner Mansukhlal died leaving behind his daughter Bai Punji as his legal heir. It seems that the sale price was not paid at the time of sale and as such the daughter of the original owner Bai Punji instituted a suit against Chhotalal, one of the purchasers for the unpaid sale price. Chhotalal also instituted suit bearing No. 2 of 1942 for possession of the land against Bai Punji, Mansukhlal Raiji, Nayak Mansingji, Punamchand and also the tenants who were in actual possession of the said land. The tenants were arraigned as defendants no.4 to 15 in the said suit including the predecessor of the original respondents no.3 to 8. The Suit no. 2 of 1942 filed by Chhotalal was decreed on 10.08.1943 declaring that Chhotalal and Punamchand were entitled to recover the possession of the land.

5. It seems that two appeals being Nos. 310 of 1843 and 317 of 1943 were filed by Bai Punji and Nayak Mansingji but no appeal was preferred by the alleged tenants namely, the predecessor in interest of the original respondents no.3 to 8. The decree was modified by this Court to the extent that the possession of half of the land was given to Chhotalal on payment of Rs.5000/- to Bai Punji. The decree holder Chhotalal filed Execution Case No. 2 of 1948 wherein the Court directed the Collector to partition the property. On the matter being taken to the High Court, the executing Court on 20.03.1958 passed an order directing that the actual physical possession be delivered to Chhotalal. The said order was challenged in appeal filed by the predecessor in interest of the original respondent no.3 before the Writ court and the same was dismissed.

6. The matter travelled to the Apex Court. During the pendency of the Civil Appeal No. 316 of 1970 preferred by the predecessor in