under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - seller has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the judgement and order dtd.25/6/2006 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No.26 of 2008, by which the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the said Revision Application preferred by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the Dy.Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat dtd.23/4/2008 in Tenancy Case No. 28 of 2007 in dropping the proceedings against the private respondents herein under sec.84(C) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. That the petitioner was owner of the land in question and he sold the said land in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 11 herein by registered sale deed dtd.11/2/1986 on payment of full consideration and Mutation Entry No.552 dtd.13/2/1986 came to be recorded in the revenue record mutating the name of the purchasers. That after a period of nine years, the Collector, Surat initiated suo-motu proceedings of Revision against the Mutation Entry No.552 by registering RTS Case No.158 of 1994. That vide order
transaction and the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 11 dtd.11/2/1996, the Collector vide order communication dtd.29/1/2005 directed the Mamlatdar and ALT to initiated proceedings under sec.70(O) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and to examine whether the respondent Nos.4 to 11 purchasers were agriculturists or not. Accordingly, the Mamlatdar and ALT initiated proceedings under sec.70(O) of the Bombay Tenancy Act against the respondent Nos.4 to 11 by issuing notice dtd.3/1/2007. That the Mamlatdar and ALT by order dtd.31/8/2007 passed in Tenancy Case No.85 of 2006 recorded a finding that the respondent Nos.4 to 11 were agriculturists and they have committed breach of the provisions of sec.2(6) read with sec.63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act while purchasing the subject land. Consequently, the Mamlatdar and ALT issued direction under sec.84(C)(2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act directing to restore the possession of the suit land to its original position within a period of three months. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, the respondent
authorities below have not actually gone into the merits of the case as to whether at the relevant time the respondent Nos.4 to 11 were agriculturists or not. It is submitted that, as such, the finding given by the Mamlatdar and ALT that the respondent Nos.4 to 11 were not agriculturists, is not upset either by the Dy.Collector or the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. It is submitted that sale in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 11 is declared invalid and therefore, the land is required to be disposed of under sec.84(C) of the Bombay Tenancy Act and the petitioner as a seller can be re-granted the land in question. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has locus to prefer the present petition.