Mr.Navin Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that at the time when the petitioner sold the land in question in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 11, he was made to aware that respondent Nos.4 to 11 purchasers are agriculturists, however, subsequently, it has been found that the respondent Ns.4 to 11 were not agriculturists at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the Dy.Collector as well as the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal have quashed and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT mainly on the ground that proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar and ALT belatedly and after unreasonable period. It is further submitted that both the 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.