ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat in Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 whereby the Deputy Collector, Surat quashed and set aside the order dated 09.01.1978 passed in proceedings No. 32G/58/77 in respect of land situated at Mouje Bahre, Taluka : Valod, admeasuring 1 acre 32 gunthas sitauted at Survey no. 377 Block No. 433 of the aforesaid village which is already vested into the Government as well as the order dated 12.11.1999 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) whereby he partly allowed the Revision Application No. SRD-ST-TENANCY-1 of 1997 preferred by the present petitioners and though he confirmed the order dated 31.01.1997, learned Deputy Secretary passed an order by modified the earlier order passed by the Deputy Collector to the extent of initiating the proceedings under section 32 P by directing to initiate the proceedings under section 84 (C) of the Bombay Tenancy Act for breach of the provision of section 27 of the Act.

2. Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta appearing for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Rohan Shah appearing for the respondent no. 1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Dhirendra Mehta appearing for the respondent no. 2.1.

4. The facts of the case can be summarized as under:-

4.1. The deceased Manibhai Gopalbhai and Ichchhaben and Sampatbhai were holding the land bearing Survey No. 373 Block No. 433 admeasuring 6 Acres 34 Gunthas situated at Village: Buhari, Taluka : Valod, District : Surat. According to the facts stated in this petition, one Gajraben Wd/o. Manibhai Dahyabhai was the tenant of the said land and hence her name was mutated vide entry no. 773 dated 25.08.1948. As she was a tenant under the Tenancy Act, the proceedings under section 32G were initiated between the Gajraben Wd/o. Manibhai Dahyabhai and the landlord and owner of the deceased Sampatbhai by virtue of Tenancy Case No. 800, the aforesaid proceedings became ineffective vide order dated 13.01.1967 and again the proceedings under Tenancy Act under the provisions of section 32P were initiated. However, the same was also dropped vide order dated 30.03.1974. Thereafter, again as per the amended provision under section 32P proceedings under section 32G were initiated by Tenancy Case No. 58 of 1977 between deceased Gajaraben and owner of the land – Manibhai and Ichchhaben and thereafter, Gajaraben was declared as deemed purchaser under the provision of the Bombay Tenancy Act of the land in question vide order dated 06.01.1978. Accordingly the purchased price of the land was determined and the same was paid as per the provision of the Act and a certificate under section 32 M also was issued in favour of Gajaraben and the Revenue Entry No.

2652 was mutated.

4.2. The said Gajaraben expired on 08.11.1981 and thereafter by virtue of a will executed by deceased Gajaraben in the name of present petitioners - Rameshbhai Manibhai Desai was mutated vide entry no. 2775 dated 29.05.1982. According to the petitioners, after lapse of almost 18 years, the Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 was initiated by the Deputy Collector, Surat by alleging that the land bearing Block No. 433 was not in possession of Gajaraben Manibhai as tenant and it was in possession of 3rd party namely Manilal Ambelal and thereby, the order passed in favour of the Gajaraben Manibhai dated 06.01.1978 was required to be cancelled and the same was accordingly cancelled vide order dated 31.01.1997 by the Deputy Collector, Surat in Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996. The present petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat in Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1996 on a number of grounds wherein one of the ground raised by the petitioners was that at the time when the proceedings of Tenancy Appeal No