The tenant was deemed a purchaser of the land under the Tenancy Act as of 1.4.1957, invalidating the landlord's later claims to ownership and asserting the tenant's rights.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

With the request and consent of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, both the appeals are heard together and they are being decided by this common order.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in a set of writ petitions (two in number) arising out of the common order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 25.04.2008.

4. The learned single Judge categorically records that the petitioners claim to have purchased the land-in-question bearing Revenue Survey No. 2034 admeasuring Hec. 0-40-17 situated in the sim of village Bakrol, Taluka and District Anand. The respondents are the heirs of deceased Ramabhai Dalpatbhai Chauhan, who admittedly was held to be a tenant of the land-in-question. It is recorded in the judgment impugned that the petitioners had purchased the lands by different sale deeds executed on various dates between 21.08.1984 and 22.11.1999, after the landlord had allegedly obtained permission for Non-agricultural use and the sub-plotting of the lands-in-question.

5. The claim of the petitioners before the writ court was that the possession of the land-in-question was handed over voluntarily by the original tenant to the original landlord as per the Mamlatdar’s order dated 10.03.1965. The District Development Officer, Kheda granted NA permission to Dhirubhai Chotalal Patel, son of the original landlord on 09.08.1984. The heirs of the original tenant namely Ramanbhai Dalpatbhai Chauhan challenged the said order dated 09.08.1984 by filling Revision Application No. 3 of 2003 before the Chief Secretary (Appeals), Ahmedabd, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2004 on the ground of delay, having been filed after a period of 19 years.

6. The contention in the writ petition was that the land-in- question was divided into six plots and the petitioners had purchased after grant of NA permission. In the meantime, heirs of original tenant namely, Ramanbhai Dalpatbhai Chauhan filed a Tenancy Appeal No. 113 of 1992 on 05.02.1992 against Dhirubhai, the heir of deceased Chotubhai, the original landlord, challenging the order dated 10.03.1965 passed by the Mamlatdar after a period of 27 years. The contention was that though the names of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/purchasers were shown as owners of the land-in-question in the revenue records, but they were not made party in the said Tenancy Appeal. No notice was served upon the land- owner namely Dhirubhai. The appeal was decided in the absence of the landlord vide order dated 11.07.1994 by the Deputy Collector who had allowed the same cancelling the order dated 10.03.1965 passed by the Mamlatdar and remanded the case for fresh consideration to decide the sale price of the land-in-question.

7. The contention is that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and the landlord namely Dhirubhai Patel challenged the order dated 11.07.1994 by filling Revision Application No. 580 of 1996 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In the meantime, the Mamlatdar took up the remand proceedings of the tenancy case by registering a new case No. 735/1994, where again the petitioners were not joined as parties. In the remand proceedings, the purchase price of the land-in-question was determined as Rs. 2200.56 giving directions to the heirs of the original tenant to pay the purchase price within one year in one installment and declared the land-in-question as a new tenure land under Section 43 of the Act vide order dated 24.01.1996.

8. The petitioner Nos.