D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision dated 17/03/1982 rendered in Revision Application No. TEN B. A. 76/80 by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By the impugned decision the Tribunal confirmed the concurrent findings and decisions of the Mamlatdar and A. L. T. Umergaon in Tenancy Case No. 3042/77 and that of appellate authority i. e. Deputy Collector Valsad in Tenancy Appeal No. 126/78 holding that the respondent being the lawful tenant in respect of the land in question was entitled to get possession of the land which shall be restored to him. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein also filed review application being Revision Application No. TEN C. S. 3/82 before the Tribunal who by its judgment order dated 30/12/1982 dismissed the review application confirming the order passed in the said Revision Application No. 76/80. ( 3 ) A few relevant facts leading to the present petition may be noticed. The respondent was the tenant in respect of the land Survey No. 119/1/2/1 admeasuring O-A 13 Gunthas paiki situated at village Nagvasha Taluka Umergaon District Valsad. In the suo motu inquiry initiated by the Mamlatdar under Section 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (for short the Bombay Tenancy Act) it was found that the name of the respondent was shown as a tenant in the revenue records on the appointed day i. e. 15/06/1955 Therefore Mamlatdar by the order dated 5/01/1978 in Tenancy Case No. 3042 declared the respondent as a tenant of the land in question and further ordered to put him in possession thereof as the respondent-tenant was dispossessed of the land without due process of law. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner herein preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 126 before the Deputy Collector Valsad who by his order dated 25/09/1979 dismissed it and confirmed the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate authority approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by way of aforesaid revision application under Section 78 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Tribunal also dismissed the revision application and confirmed the findings and decisions of the Courts below as aforesaid. ( 4 ) MR. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate authority approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by way of aforesaid revision application under Section 78 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Tribunal also dismissed the revision application and confirmed the findings and decisions of the Courts below as aforesaid. ( 4 ) MR. S. H. Sanjanwala learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the proceedings under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy Act were held by the Mamlatdar and by the order dated 28/09/1961 the respondent was not held to be the tenant in respect of the land in question. Therefore it was not open for the Mamlatdar to initiate further inquiry nor he could pass the impugned order at Annexure A. In this view of the matter the impugned order was according to Mr. Sanjanwala barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Mr. Sanjanwala then argued that no inquiry could have been initiated after lapse of unreasonable time since the aforesaid order dated 28/09/1981 under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy Act was passed by the Mamlatdar. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has considered all the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the petitioner-landlord. In para 8 of its judgment the Tribunal held that considering the effect of the arguments of the learned Advocates and after perusing the records of the Mamlatdar one would feel no hesitation in accepting the plea that entry No. 262 dated 28/06/1968 which was made in pursuance of the order passed by the Mamlatdar in the inquiry held under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy Act which was held in the year 1961 was not a legal order in view of the fact that the tenant was not willing to purchase the same. The Mamlatdar could have dropped the proceedings. Instead he decided that there was no relationship of the tenant and landlord though the name of the respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue records. In this view of the matter both the Courts below concurrently held that the aforesaid order dated 28/09/1961 was not legal and proper. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has also recorded that the respondent-tenant had deposed in the inquiry held in the year 1977 that he was dispossessed from the land in question prior to about ten years or so. In this view of the matter both the Courts below concurrently held that the aforesaid order dated 28/09/1961 was not legal and proper. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has also recorded that the respondent-tenant had deposed in the inquiry held in the year 1977 that he was dispossessed from the land in question prior to about ten years or so. It is therefore established that the respondent was in occupation and cultivation of the land in question till 1967. It is abundantly clear from the record that the possession was not taken from the respondent by the landlord in accordance with law inasmuch no legal or valid order was passed before 3/03/1973 with regard to this aspect. The Courts below and the Tribunal have therefore rightly held that the ingradients of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act were clearly attracted in the case. The Courts below and the Tribunal have therefore rightly held that the ingradients of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act were clearly attracted in the case. ( 7 ) SECTION 32 (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act provides that where a tenant who was in possession of land on the appointed day ( 15/06/1955 and who on account of his being dispossessed of such land or any part thereof by the landlord at any time before the specified date ( 3/03/1973 otherwise than in the manner provided in Section 29 or any other provision of this Act is not in possession of such land or any part thereof and such land or part thereof is in the possession of the landlord or his successor-in-interest on the said date and such land or part thereof is not put to a non-agricultural use on or before the said date then the Mamlatdar shall notwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 19 or any other provision of this Act either suo motu or on an application of the tenant made within the prescribed period hold an inquiry and direct that the said land or as the case may be part thereof shall be taken from the possession of the landlord or as the case may be his successor in interest and shall be resored to the tenant and therefore the provisions of this Section and Sections 32a to 32 (both inclusive) shall so far as they may be applicable apply thereto subject to the modification that the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased such land or part thereof on the date on which such land or as the case may be part thereof is restored to him. Proviso to Section 32 (1b) provides that the tenant shall be entitled to restoration of land or part thereof as the case may be under this sub-section only if he gives an undertaking in writing within such period as may be prescribed to cultivate it personally and of so much thereof as together with the other land held by him as owner or tenant shall not exceed the ceiling area. On failure to give such undertaking by the tenant the landlord would be entitled to retain the land. On failure to give such undertaking by the tenant the landlord would be entitled to retain the land. If the tenant gives such undertaking and accepts such tenancy or possession of the land such portion of the land referred to in clause (i) to the restoration of which the tenant would not be entitled under the first proviso shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (2) of Section 32p. ( 8 ) SECTION 32p contemplates the power of the Collector to resume and dispose of land purchased by the tenant. Sub-section (2) of Section 32p reads as under : 32 Power of Collector to resume and dispose of land not purchased by tenant (and appeal against Collectors order) : (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Such direction shall subject to the provisions of such Section (2aa) and (2a) provide- (a) that the tenancy in respect of the land shall be terminated and the tenant be summarily evicted; xxx xxx xxx (c) that the entire land or such portion thereof as the case maybe notwithstanding that it is a fragment shall subject to the terms and conditions as may be specified in the direction be disposed of by sale to person in the following order of priority (hereinafter called the priority list): (a-i) the tenant whose tenancy in respect of that land is terminated if such tenant is willing to accept the offer of sale provided the occasions for the issue of such direction has not arisen by reason of an act of collusion between such tenant and the landlord. (i) a co-operative framing society the members of which are agricultural labourers landless persons or small holders or a combination of such persons; (ii) agricultural labourers; (iii) landless persons; (iv) small holders; (v) a co-operative farming society of agriculturists other than small holders who hold either as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant landless in area than an economic holding and who is an artisan; (vii) any other co-operative farming society; (viii) any agriculturist who holds either as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land larger in area than an economic holding but less in area than the ceiling area; (ix) any person not being an agriculturist who intends to take to the profession of agriculture: Provided that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette give in relation to such local areas as it may specify such priority in the above order as it thinks fit to any class of persons who by reason of the acquisition of their land for any development project approved for the purpose by the State Government have displaced and require to be re-settled;. . . . ( 9 ) THE Division Bench of this Court comprising J. B. Mehta and B. K. Mehta JJ. (as they were then) has held in the case of Rampuri Kalupuri Swami and Another v. Nathalal Ishwarbhai Hargovanbhai Shah reported in 17 G. L. R. page 81 that the whole scheme of 1973 Amendment is to give this right of purchase to the tenant who had remained in actual possession notwithstanding that there had been some order under Section 32p or an attempt to dispossess him by taking only paper possession. The whole test created by the legislature in this explanation is that the land is not deemed to be disposed of till actual possession is taken under the lawful direction issued under Section 32p (2) by the person entitled in accordance with law. The whole test created by the legislature in this explanation is that the land is not deemed to be disposed of till actual possession is taken under the lawful direction issued under Section 32p (2) by the person entitled in accordance with law. Therefore if dispossession was not in accordance with law by ignoring of fetter of sub-clause (5) either because of retrospectivity created by the supplementary fiction in sub-Sections (1b) and (1d) of Section 32pp which recorded the rights without any hiatus or because the said mandate was vitiated by any further action purporting to give actual possession after the person entitled had actually applied under Section 32pp or 32ppp within the extended period during the pendency of such application or for any other reason. If the actual possession had continued with the tenant the second condition by restoring to the explanation would be deemed to be fulfilled notwithstanding the passing of the order under Section 32p (2) and the application under Section 32 would be maintainable. In the instant case it was clear finding of fact recorded by the Mamlatdar and ALT that the respondent was lawful tenant of the land in question on the appointed day i. e. 15/06/1955 and that he was dispossessed from the land without due process of law. The said finding of fact has been confirmed by the appellate authority and also by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In this view of the matter it cannot be held that the earlier order i. e. the order of the Mamlatdar dated 28/09/1961 which was no order in the eye of law for the reason that the respondent-tenant was not dispossessed from the land in question in accordance with the law. In the facts of the case the doctrine of res judicata cannot operate to the impugned decision of the Tribunal. ( 10 ) AS regards the point of delay the Tribunal having considered the aim and object of the Bombay Tenancy Act that the benefit of the poor agricultural tenants who are illiterate and not knowing the recourse of law should be protected and provisions of Section 32 (B) or Section 84c of the Bombay Tenancy Act authorise the Mamlatdar to make inquiries when it is found necessary. The Tribunal further held that in view of such matter the inquiry being held after a lapse of five years would be treated as legal and valid. The Tribunal further held that in view of such matter the inquiry being held after a lapse of five years would be treated as legal and valid. In my opinion the findings recorded by the Tribunal are just and proper. ( 11 ) IN the case of Rasulmiya Rehmanmiya v. Patel Lalbhai Shankerbhai 2491 G. L. R. page 714 this Court while dealing with the provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act held that the Mamlatdar has been advisedly entrusted with suo motu power by the Legislature to entertain any appropriate case under Section 32 (1b) - even if the aggrieved tenant might not have applied within time for redress of his grievance. Section 32 (1b) is a beneficial provision enacted with a view to protect the rights of illiterate and ignorant tenants who might have been duped by their crafty landlords into giving up possession of their lands contrary to he provisions of the Tenancy Act Such tenants might skip the period of one years limitation as provided by the statutory rules [rule 15 (A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Rules 1956 However they are given a locus paenitentiae in the form of invocation of suo motu powers of the Mamlatdar for getting justice. Their time-barred applications seek to do nothing else but to inform the Mamlatdar about the injustice done to them. Once convinced the justness of the grievance put forward by such a tenant if the Mamlatdar proceeds to deal with the case under Section 32 (1b) on merits only inference that can follow from such a course adopted by the Mamlatdar is that he has thought it fit to invoke his suo motu powers which are not subject to any period of limitation. The legislature in its wisdom has not put any time limit to the exercise of suo motu powers by the Mamlatdar under Section 32 (1b ). By no process of judicial interpretation such a time limit can be engrafted in the section. Only safety value can be that such powers should be exercised within reasonable time. ( 12 ) IN the above view of the matter there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor any jurisdictional error is pointed out so as to enable this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Only safety value can be that such powers should be exercised within reasonable time. ( 12 ) IN the above view of the matter there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor any jurisdictional error is pointed out so as to enable this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I see no informity in the concurrent findings of facts of the courts below and confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal having regard to the relevant provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. ( 13 ) IN the result the petition deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged with costs. At this stage Mr. S. H. Sanjanwala learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner requests that the ad interim relief granted earlier by this Court may be continued for a period of eight weeks from today so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. In the facts of the case the ad interim relief to continue for a period of six weeks from today. .