Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgement of Learned Single Judge dated 5.12.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 24855 of 2006. 2. Shortly stated, facts leading to the appeal are as follows : 2.1 The appellants who are successor-in-title of deceased Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel, claim to be tenants of land bearing Survey No. 270, admeasuring 14 acres and 20 gunthas of village Chhanchapur, Taluka Godhra(here-in-after referred to as “the suit land”). 2.2 Respondents No. 1.2.1 to 1.2.4 are the heirs of original landlord. Respondents No. 2 to 6 are the purchasers of the suit land who had purchased the said land in the year 1993. 2.3 Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel in the year 1979 filed an application being Tenancy Case No. 406/76 before the Mamlatdar and ALT under Section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (here-in-after referred to as “the Tenancy Act”). In the said proceedings late Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel deposed before the Mamlatdar that he was cultivating the land many years back. His name as well as name of his brother Manibhai Dahyabhai Patel was therefore, entered in the revenue records. Manilal is however, Doctor by profession and does not know agricultural operations. He alone therefore, used to cultivate the land. He has not cultivated the land after 1953-1954. Since he had sufficient land of his own, he had willingly handed over the possession thereof to the landlord in the year 1953-1954. Since then, land owner is cultivating the land personally. His name is rightly deleted as a tenant from the revenue record since he had stopped cultivating the said land. He specifically stated that he handed over the possession before 15.6.1955 and on 15.6.1955, landlord was in possession. He was explained by the Mamlatdar that if he was in possession of the land as a tenant on 15.6.1955, he can get back the possession. He however, repeated that since he was not cultivating the land on 15.6.1955, he is not entitled to get the possession of the land back. Deposition of the landlord was also recorded to the same effect. Ultimately, the Mamlatdar and ALT on the basis of evidence before him, closed the proceedings under Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act by his order dated 22.2.77. 2.4 Tenant took no further steps for a long time to challenge the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Godhra. Deposition of the landlord was also recorded to the same effect. Ultimately, the Mamlatdar and ALT on the basis of evidence before him, closed the proceedings under Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act by his order dated 22.2.77. 2.4 Tenant took no further steps for a long time to challenge the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Godhra. Instead 10 years later, he filed a fresh application before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Godhra in the year 1987 which application was registered as Tenancy Case No. 1/87, in which also he once again sought benefit of Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act. Since no one remained present before the Mamlatdar, this application was also closed on 20.7.87. 2.5 Contending that he had no information about the earlier application being dismissed by Mamlatdar, Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel filed appeal against the order dated 22.2.77 before the Deputy Collector on 22.7.87 i.e. more than 10 years later. The said appeal after round of remand came to be dismissed by the Deputy Collector by his order dated 26.11.97. He upheld the findings of the Mamlatdar and ALT. 2.6 Heirs of deceased Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel thereupon preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being TEN.B.A. No. 579/1997. This Revision Application was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 31.3.2006 holding that no case under Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act is made out. 2.7 Issue was further carried in writ petition before this Court. Learned Single Judge by his impugned order dated 5.12.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 24855/2006 was pleased to dismiss the petition. Learned Judge observed inter-alia that on the relevant date, the petitioners were not found in possession of the land by all the authorities. The possession was handed over prior to the relevant date. Learned Judge therefore, did not find it appropriate to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2.8 Against the said decision, present appeal has been filed. 3. Appearing for the appellants, learned advocate Shri J.M. Patel submitted that deceased Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel was an illiterate person. The statement before the Mamlatdar therefore, could not have been attached undue importance. Revenue record suggests that deceased Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel and his brother Manilal were in possession of the land as tenants right upto year 1956. All ingredients of Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act were therefore, fulfilled. The statement before the Mamlatdar therefore, could not have been attached undue importance. Revenue record suggests that deceased Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel and his brother Manilal were in possession of the land as tenants right upto year 1956. All ingredients of Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act were therefore, fulfilled. 3.1 He contended that admittedly, Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel was the tenant of the suit land. Even if he had handed over the possession of the land voluntarily, the same would not extinguish the tenancy since procedure under Section 15 of the Tenancy Act was not followed. The tenant therefore, had the right to recover possession under Section 15 read with Section 29 of the Tenancy Act. He relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions : 1. Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others vs. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Another reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 643. 2. Dahiben Wd/o. Ranchhodji Jivanji & Ors. vs. Vasanji Kevalbhai (Dead) & Ors. reported in 1996 (1) GLR 272. 3. Bapu Parasu Kaikadi (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Bapu (Dead) by L.Rs., reported in 2003 AIR SCW 6923 4. Jitubhai Mastubhai Through heirs Mohmmedbhai & Anr. vs. Natvarlal Mahijibhai & Anr., reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1728 . 5. Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by LRs. vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Others reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 915. 6. Sita Ram Bhau Patail vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil(dead) by LRs. and Another reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1712. 3.2 In particular, heavy reliance was placed on the decision in case of Bapu Parasu Kaikadi (Dead) by L.Rs. (Supra) wherein the Apex Court had occasion to consider the provisions contained in Sections 32(1B), 15 and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act as applicable to Maharashtra State which are similar in nature to those found in the Tenancy Act as applicable to Gujarat region of Bombay State. 4. On the other hand, appearing for Respondents No. 2 to 6, purchaser of the land, learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah contended that : 1. Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable since the Learned Single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The tenant had voluntarily handed over the possession of the suit land prior to 15.6.1955. Provisions of Section 32(1B) therefore, would not apply. 3. Mehul S. Shah contended that : 1. Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable since the Learned Single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The tenant had voluntarily handed over the possession of the suit land prior to 15.6.1955. Provisions of Section 32(1B) therefore, would not apply. 3. Conduct of the tenant and his successor also would not warrant interference in the appeal. 4. The land has already been sold to present Respondents No. 2 to 6 by the original land owners. 4.1 He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dayandeo Ganpat Jadhav vs. Madhav Vithal Bhaskar and Others reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 93. 5. Before dealing with rival submissions, we may notice the relevant portion of Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act which reads as follows : “(1B) Where a tenant who was in possession of land on the appointed day 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 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 29 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 such 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 restored, to the tenant; and thereafter, the provisions of this section and Sections 32-A to 32-R (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:” 6. Appointed day is defined under the Act as 15.6.1955. Appointed day is defined under the Act as 15.6.1955. Specified date is defined as date of coming into force of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1972 which happens to be 3.3.73. 7. As already noticed, before the Mamlatdar and ALT in the first application under Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act, tenant Ambalal Dahyabhai Patel himself in clear terms stated that possession of the land was voluntarily given up to the landlord in the year 1953-1954 since he already had sufficient land of his ownership. Since then, he had not cultivated the land but it was the landlord who had cultivated the same. He was given to understand that if he is found to be in possession on 15.6.1955 as tenant, he could get the land back. He however, stuck to his stand that he had given up the possession prior to 15.6.1955. In view of this unequivocal statement by the tenant before the Mamlatdar way back in the year 1977, three authorities below as well as Learned Single Judge of this Court found and in our view correctly that the provision under Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act would not apply. There is nothing on record to suggest that the tenant had retracted the said statement or that the said statement was made under duress, misrepresentation on part of the landlord or misunderstanding on part of the tenant. Importantly, after the Mamlatdar closed the proceedings under Section 32(1B) on 22.2.77, no step was taken by the tenant to assert his right on the suit land for nearly 10 years. He first preferred fresh application under Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act before the Mamlatdar in the year 1987, but allowed it to lapse by default. He thereafter, preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector after much delay. 8. In view of the concurrent findings of fact by three authorities below as well as Learned Single Judge that tenant was not in possession of the suit land on 15.6.1955, finding that Section 32(1B) of the Tenancy Act would not apply in the present case in our view is perfectly just. 9. Learned advocate Shri J.M. Patel however, contended that even if the tenant had lost his possession prior to 1955, there was no surrender of tenancy with approval of Mamlatdar as required in Section 15 of the Tenancy Act. 10. 9. Learned advocate Shri J.M. Patel however, contended that even if the tenant had lost his possession prior to 1955, there was no surrender of tenancy with approval of Mamlatdar as required in Section 15 of the Tenancy Act. 10. We are afraid this contention cannot be examined in the present proceedings. The tenant approached Mamlatdar not on the ground that his tenancy was illegally sought to be terminated in guise of an invalid surrender. He approached on the ground that he was in possession of the suit land on 15.6.1955, but was dispossessed therefrom, otherwise than in the manner provided in Section 29 of the Tenancy Act. This application was examined by the Tenancy authorities on the basis of evidence on record. The tenant himself stated that he had voluntarily handed over the possession of the land in the year 1953-1954. Whether in the process, requirement of Section 15 of the Tenancy Act was followed or not was not a question raised in the present proceedings. 11. Considering the above aspects of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. In case of Bapu Parasu Kaikadi (Dead) by L.Rs. (Supra), it was undisputed position that the appellant was a tenant of the suit land since 1948-1949 and he lost the possession in the year 1956 (after the appointed day i.e. 15.6.1955). It was in this background that the Apex Court granted the benefit of Section 32(1B) to the tenant. 12. In view of above conclusions that we have reached, we do not find it necessary to examine whether the writ petition was entertained by the Learned Single Judge under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since in the ultimate analysis in our view, same will make no difference. 13. Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application also stands dismissed accordingly.