JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Ms. Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 to 3, Mr.Dhiraj M.Patel, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/3 and Mr.H.M. Prachchhak, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition has been heard and finally decided by this judgment. 2. By preferring this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 17-06-2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (Tribunal for short), rejecting the application dated 25-09-2008, filed by the petitioners, for joining as party respondents to Revision Application No.TEN/BA/423/94,filed by respondent No.4, on several grounds raised in the petition. 3. The case has a chequered history. In order to appreciate the same, a short narration of the factual matrix would be necessary. It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Survey No.1116/1, 1116/2 and 1116/3, situated at Kadi (the land in question) was mutated in the name of Pranshankar Mahadev, ever since the year 1956. At one point of time, Haribhai Lallubhai Bhatt became the Pujari and was managing all the affairs of the Temple. His name was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. Haribhai Lallubhai died in the year 1976, after which the name of his widow, Shantaben, was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. It appears that Shantaben gave the land on lease, for a period of ten years, to respondent No.4, Shri Atmaram Dwarkadas Patel, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/3. The lease expired in the year 1988 and was not renewed thereafter. Respondent No.4 made an application to respondent No.3, Mamlatdar and ALT, Kadi, to be declared as a tenant under the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948. Respondent No.4 also sought a declaration that he is deemed to have purchased the land in question. Respondent No.3 passed an order on 18-08-1989,declaring respondent No.4 to be a tenant upon the land in question. Respondent No.4 also sought a declaration that he is deemed to have purchased the land in question. Respondent No.3 passed an order on 18-08-1989,declaring respondent No.4 to be a tenant upon the land in question. As the above-mentioned order was passed by respondent No.3 without hearing Shantaben, she challenged the same before respondent No.2, Deputy Collector, who quashed and set it aside, by his order dated 09-08-1990, and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3, for fresh hearing and consideration. Even after remand, respondent No.3 did not grant an opportunity of hearing to Shantaben, and again passed an order declaring respondent No.4 as a tenant, on 20-02-1992. Shantaben once again preferred an appeal against the order dated 20-02-1992, passed by respondent No.3, before respondent No.2. For the second time, respondent No.2 quashed and set aside the order passed by respondent No.3, by his order dated 10-02-1994, on the ground of lack of opportunity of hearing to Shantaben. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-02-1994 passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 preferred a revision application, registered as Revision Application No.TEN/BA/423/94, before the Tribunal. During the pendency of this Revision Application Shantaben died on 13-09-2004. For reasons best known to the Tribunal, Shantaben s name came to be deleted from the array of parties. Without joining the legal heirs and representatives of Shantaben in the proceedings, the Tribunal allowed the Revision Application filed by respondent No.4, vide order dated 23-11-2007. While doing so, the Tribunal observed that, as Shantaben s name has been deleted, her legal heirs were not required to be joined as parties to the proceedings. This order of the Tribunal was ex parte, as far as the petitioners, who claim to be the legal heirs of Shantaben, are concerned. Aggrieved by the order dated 23-11-2007, passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners filed a petition before this Court, being Special Civil Application No.6256 of 2008. By an order dated 28-8-2008, this Court disposed of the petition by holding that: 7. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 23.11.2007 is set aside. Tribunal shall hear the Revision Application afresh after joining legal heirs of Shantaben on record. For the above purpose, petitioner herein to make an application before the Tribunal which shall examine to find out whether petitioner is in fact the sole legal heir of Shantaben or not. (emphasis supplied) 4. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 23.11.2007 is set aside. Tribunal shall hear the Revision Application afresh after joining legal heirs of Shantaben on record. For the above purpose, petitioner herein to make an application before the Tribunal which shall examine to find out whether petitioner is in fact the sole legal heir of Shantaben or not. (emphasis supplied) 4. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Tribunal has passed the order dated 17-6-2011, holding that the petitioners are not the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shantaben, therefore, they do not deserve to be impleaded in the proceedings. It is this order of the Tribunal that has been impugned in the petition. 5. Mr.Mehul S.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioners are the sons and daughters of Pranshankarbhai, who was the brother of Haribhai, husband of deceased Shantaben. As Shantaben did not have any children of her own the petitioners, who are her nephews and nieces (children of her husband s brother), are Class II heirs of Shantaben s husband as per the provisions of Section 15(1)(a),read with Section 8 and the Schedule to Chapter IV of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ( the Act for short). The impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the petitioners are not the heirs and legal representatives of Shantaben is, therefore, untenable and illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.1. It is next submitted that the Tribunal has totally misinterpreted the order of this Court dated 28-8-2008, wherein directions have been issued to the Tribunal to examine and find out whether the petitioner therein was the sole legal heir of Shantaben. This Court has not directed the Tribunal to find out whether the petitioners are, in fact, the legal heirs of deceased Shantaben, or not. The Tribunal was asked to examine whether Shantaben had more than one legal heir and representative. Thereafter, those legal heirs were to be joined as party respondents in the revision application filed by respondent No.4. Instead of doing this, Tribunal has misdirected itself by holding that it was to decide the issue whether the petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shantaben, on the basis of the order passed by this court. Thereafter, those legal heirs were to be joined as party respondents in the revision application filed by respondent No.4. Instead of doing this, Tribunal has misdirected itself by holding that it was to decide the issue whether the petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shantaben, on the basis of the order passed by this court. The petitioners are required to be recognised as heirs and legal representatives of Shantaben and are entitled to be joined as parties to the main Revision Application pending before the Tribunal, being Class II heirs of deceased Shantaben s husband. 5.2 On the above reasons, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be quashed and set aside. 6. Opposing the petition, Mr.Dhiraj M.Patel, learned advocate for respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/3, has drawn the attention of this court to paragraph 7 of the order dated 28-8-2008, passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6256 of 2008, by submitting that as the High Court has not examined who the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shantaben are, and as the matter has been remitted to the Tribunal for this purpose, therefore, the Tribunal has legally and correctly decided the application of the petitioners. 6.1 It is next submitted that the petitioners are not Class I heirs of deceased Shantaben, therefore, they are not entitled to be joined as parties to the Revision Application pending before the Tribunal. 6.2 It is submitted that the impugned order deserves no interference and the petition may be rejected. 7. Ms.Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 to 3, has submitted that it is a dispute between two private parties. However, having said that, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that she would be adopting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondents Nos.4/1 to 4/3. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of the Tribunal may be confirmed. 8. Mr.H.M. Prachchhak, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.5 has submitted that, as the said respondent is a formal party, no arguments are required to be advanced. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record. 8. Mr.H.M. Prachchhak, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.5 has submitted that, as the said respondent is a formal party, no arguments are required to be advanced. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record. A perusal of paragraph 7 of the order of this Court dated 28-8-2008, passed in Special Civil Application No.6256 of 2008 (reproduced hereinabove), makes it clear that the petitioner of that petition, namely, Dharmendra Premshanker Bhatt, who claimed to be one of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shantaben, was permitted to make an application before the Tribunal, which was directed to examine and find out whether he was,in fact, the sole legal heir of Shantaben, or whether there were other legal heirs. The directions contained in the order of this Court are absolutely clear and unambiguous. It is, however, apparent from the impugned order of the Tribunal that these directions have been thoroughly misinterpreted. The Tribunal has gone on a wrong tangent by taking upon itself the self-imposed task of examining whether the petitioners are, in fact, the legal heirs of Shantaben and has come to the conclusion that they are not, on wholly specious grounds. The direction of this Court was to find out whether the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.6256 of 2008 was the sole legal heir; meaning thereby, whether there were other legal heirs who were not before the Court at the relevant point of time. Instead of adhering to the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has embarked upon an unnecessary and uncalled for enquiry, that is beyond the scope of the order of this court and has arrived at conclusions that are, in my considered view, ex facie erroneous. 10. To examine the veracity of the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, it would be instructive to advert to the relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 8, deals with the general rules of Succession and reads as below: 8. 10. To examine the veracity of the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, it would be instructive to advert to the relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 8, deals with the general rules of Succession and reads as below: 8. General rules of succession in the case of males.-- The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter- (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. (emphasis supplied) 11. In the Schedule under Chapter IV, Class II heirs have been defined as below: Class II I. Father. II. (1) Son s daughter s son, (2) son s daughter s daughter, (3) brother, (4) sister. III. (1) Daughter s son s son, (2) daughter s son s daughter,(3) daughter s daughter's son,(4) daughter s daughter's daughter. IV. (1) Brother son,(2) sister s son, (3) brother s daughter, (4) sister s daughter. V. Father s father; father s mother. VI. Father s widow; brother s widow. VII. Father s brother; father s sister. VIII. Mother s father; mother s mother. IX. Mother s brother; mother s sister. (emphasis supplied) 12. The petitioners are the sons and daughters of the brother of Shantaben s husband, Haribhai. They would, therefore be Class II heirs of Shantaben s husband, as she had no children of her own. 13. Further, Section 15 of the Act which deals with the general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus reads as below. 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (emphasis supplied) 14. (emphasis supplied) 14. A conjoint and cumulative reading of the above-quoted provisions of law, makes it very clear that the petitioners are Class-II heirs of deceased Shantaben s husband, Haribhai, being Haribhai s brother s children. As Shantaben had no children of her own, her heirs and legal representatives would be the legal heirs of her husband. The reasons given by the Tribunal in the impugned order, holding that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of Shantaben, are not in consonance with the legal position flowing from the above provisions of law, and cannot be sustained. 15. Learned counsel for respondents No.4/1 to 4/3 has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly not joined the petitioners as parties to the Revision Application because they are not Class I heirs of Shantaben. The relevant provisions of law discussed hereinabove, reveal the legal fallacy in this submission. 16. While deciding the application, not only has the Tribunal misinterpreted the order of this Court but has also misdirected itself in law, by arriving at an erroneous conclusion that the petitioners are not the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Shantaben and do not deserve to be joined as party respondents in the Revision Application. It has been recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioners are the children of Pranshankarbhai, the brother of Haribhai and son of Lallubhai. Only on the ground that in the Pedhinama or family tree, produced before the Tribunal, there is no mention of any legal heirs below the name of Shantaben, it has been concluded that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of Shantaben. As Shantaben died childless, the family tree would obviously have no record of her progeny. A Pedhinama is essentially a genealogy or a family-tree as it is popularly called. It cannot be considered to be a document deciding succession, which is governed by the relevant Statute. 17. From the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, it is evident that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 17-6-2011, cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 18. The petitioners, being Class II heirs of deceased Shantaben s husband, are her heirs and legal representatives. 17. From the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, it is evident that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 17-6-2011, cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 18. The petitioners, being Class II heirs of deceased Shantaben s husband, are her heirs and legal representatives. That being so, the Tribunal shall join them as party respondents in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/423/94 that is pending before it, and shall grant an adequate opportunity of hearing to them before deciding the said Revision Application, in accordance with law. 19. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs.