JUDGMENT : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant-original petitioner against the order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 14901 of 2011 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition with cost of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: 2.1 It is the say of the petitioner that one Rameshbhai Dahyabhai Patel, legal heir of Dahyabhai Hathibhai Patel was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 2415/2 of village Anand, District Anand. The said land was cultivated by the father of the petitioner viz. Somabhai M. Patel as a tenant prior to 1950 and his name was also introduced as a tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). It is further the case of the petitioner that one Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki, wrongly held as tenant in the year 1980 and the Mamlatdar and ALT, Anand issued a certificate of purchase in his name. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki entered into sale agreement with different persons and sold the land in dispute in the year 1982. However, when sale deeds were not executed, the concerned purchasers filed civil suit for specific performance of the agreement. Against the decree passed by the Civil Court, first appeals were also filed before this Court and in the civil proceedings as well as the first appeals the petitioner was not joined as party. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, he applied for his tenancy right by filing Tenancy Case No. 63 of 1990 under Section 32G of the Act against the original landlord and against Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki. The Mamlatdar & ALT, Anand, vide order dated 30.07.1994 passed in Tenancy Case No. 63 of 1990, declared the petitioner as tenant of the disputed land and dismissed the claim of Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki. Accordingly, the concerned Talati mutated entry No. 50452 on 24.08.1994 2.3 As per the case of the petitioner, Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki filed Tenancy Appeal No. 7 of 1995 against the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT. Accordingly, the concerned Talati mutated entry No. 50452 on 24.08.1994 2.3 As per the case of the petitioner, Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki filed Tenancy Appeal No. 7 of 1995 against the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT. However, the said Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki withdrew the appeal on 07.04.1997 2.4 In the meantime, petitioner filed Civil Application No. 379 of 1995 before this Court in the pending first appeal for joining him as party to the proceedings. However, the said civil application came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.02.1995 2.5 It is the case of the petitioner that as per the tenancy proceedings, when Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki has withdrawn the tenancy appeal filed by him and the order of Mamlatdar & ALT, Anand passed in Tenancy Case No. 63 of 1990 declaring the petitioner as tenant has attained finality, panchnama was prepared and possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the petitioner in presence of Panchas and Talati. Possession receipt was also issued by Shri Ravjibhai Solanki and the original landlord in favour of petitioner on 04.08.1997 Petitioner thereafter approached before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Anand for fixing the purchase price of the disputed land and by an order dated 14.07.1998 passed under Section 32G of the Act in Tenancy Case No. 99 of 1997. Purchase certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued on 11.08.1997 Name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record by an entry No. 57148 dated 14.08.1997 2.6 It is the allegation of the petitioner that the present respondent No. 2 with an ulterior motive and preplanned manner applied for entering the names of his persons by way of ‘will’ of Shri Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki as Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki expired on 20.07.1998 In connivance with the concerned Talati, mutation entry was made in the revenue record on the basis of the so-called ‘will’. It is alleged that on the basis of the execution proceedings filed before the Civil Court and on the basis of the order passed in the said execution proceedings, respondent No. 2 herein got the possession of the land in dispute. It is alleged that on the basis of the execution proceedings filed before the Civil Court and on the basis of the order passed in the said execution proceedings, respondent No. 2 herein got the possession of the land in dispute. In the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 being Tenancy Appeal No. 84 of 1998, the District Collector, Anand remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT for fixing the purchase price after hearing both the parties by his order dated 13.10.1998 However, the grievance of the petitioner is that after the remand, Mamlatdar & ALT held that as the petitioner is not in possession, the price under Section 32G of the Act cannot be fixed and directed the petitioner to file the proceedings under Section 84 of the Act for getting possession. The said order came to be passed on 19.10.2000 2.7 The petitioner, therefore, filed an application under Section 84 of the Act and applied for possession before the Deputy Collector in Case No. 2/03-04. However, the Deputy Collector rejected the said application on the ground that as the matter is subjudice, the application cannot be granted. The said order came to be passed on 29.10.2004 Petitioner therefore preferred Revision Application being TEN.B.A.42/05 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. However, the said Revision Application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.09.2011 Petitioner, therefore, filed the petition before this Court in which it was averred that the orders passed by the authorities below are erroneous, null and void and also prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to handover the possession of the land in dispute after evicting the respondent No. 2 from the disputed land. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 09.05.2014 dismissed the petition and therefore present appeal is filed. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.D. Dave for the appellant-original petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 Mr. Ismailbhai Gafurbhai Vohra, as party-in-person. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the appellant-original petitioner mainly submitted that the father of the petitioner viz. Somabhai M. Patel was cultivating the land in question as a tenant much prior to 1950. However, one Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki wrongly projected him as a tenant and got certificate of purchase in the year 1980 from Mamlatdar & ALT, Anand. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the appellant-original petitioner mainly submitted that the father of the petitioner viz. Somabhai M. Patel was cultivating the land in question as a tenant much prior to 1950. However, one Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki wrongly projected him as a tenant and got certificate of purchase in the year 1980 from Mamlatdar & ALT, Anand. On the basis of the said certificate, said Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki executed sale agreement in favour of respondent No. 2 for some portion of land and in favour of other persons for other part of the land in dispute. It is submitted that two different civil suits were filed by respondent No. 2 and another against Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki without joining the petitioner as party and against the decree passed by the Civil Court first appeals were filed before this Court by the aggrieved party wherein also the petitioner was not joined. It is contended that during the pendency of the civil proceedings, the petitioner was declared as a tenant of the disputed land and the claim of Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki was dismissed by Mamlatdar & ALT by an order dated 30.07.1994 Mutation entry was accordingly made in the revenue record. The appeal filed by Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki against the said order was ultimately withdrawn by Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki on 07.04.1997. Thereafter, the possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner in presence of Talati and Panchas. Learned advocate referred to the possession receipt and the Panchnama which is produced at Annexure-B with the compilation and submitted that by virtue of the said order, the petitioner came in possession of the land in dispute on 04.08.1997 Purchase price was also fixed under Section 32G of the Act in favour of the petitioner and accordingly purchase certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. Necessary entry was also made in the record. However, relying upon the civil proceedings in which the petitioner was not a party, the possession of the land in dispute was taken over unauthorizedly. 5. It is further contended that so far as tenancy proceedings are concerned, the Civil Court is not having any jurisdiction in view of provisions contained in Section 85 of the Act. However, relying upon the civil proceedings in which the petitioner was not a party, the possession of the land in dispute was taken over unauthorizedly. 5. It is further contended that so far as tenancy proceedings are concerned, the Civil Court is not having any jurisdiction in view of provisions contained in Section 85 of the Act. At this stage, it is contended that against the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT fixing the purchase price in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 preferred appeal before the Collector and the Collector remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT for fixing purchase price after hearing both the parties. It is contended that in the meantime, the possession of the petitioner was taken over by the respondent No. 2 pursuant to the civil proceedings to which petitioner was not a party and therefore Mamlatdar & ALT observed that now purchase price under Section 32G of the Act cannot be fixed as the petitioner is not in possession of the land in dispute. He was directed to file proceedings under Section 84 of the Act. It is contended that when he filed proceedings under Section 84 of the Act, it was not entertained only on the ground that civil dispute is pending with regard to the land in dispute. 6. Thus, in the aforesaid factual background of the case, it is urged that petitioner is remedy less. On one hand, the respondent No. 2 has not joined the petitioner as party in the civil proceedings and the decree which was passed in favour of respondent No. 2 was executed against the petitioner and thereby the possession of the land in dispute was wrongly taken over and on the other hand the authority under the Tenancy Act rejected the application under Section 84 of the Act only on the ground that civil proceedings are pending and therefore such application cannot be entertained. He, therefore, submitted that learned Single Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid important factual aspect of the matter and therefore this Court may quash the order dated 24.10.2004 passed by the Deputy Collector rejecting the application under Section 84 of the Act and order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the revision application and thereby direct the respondent No. 1 to handover the vacant possession of the land in question by evicting the respondent No. 2. 7. On the other hand, respondent No. 2, party-in-person supported the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge and placed reliance upon the order dated 17.11.1980 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 86 of 1979 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 106 of 1979 and submitted that when the said LPAs were dismissed, this appeal may not be entertained. 8. Learned AGP Mr. Sharma submitted that now the civil proceedings are concluded and therefore if this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the Deputy Collector for deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Act, the same can be considered on its own merits. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it is clear that the father of the petitioner viz. Somabhai M. Patel was cultivating the land in dispute much prior to 1950 and he was introduced as a tenant under the Act. However, in the year 1980, for the first time, one Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki also claimed to be a tenant of the land in dispute and he was held as tenant in the year 1980 by Mamlatdar & ALT and certificate of purchase was issued in his favour. On the basis of the same he entered into agreement to sell in favour of the present respondent No. 2 and others for different parcels of land. When the sale deed was not executed respondent No. 2 and another filed two different civil suits against Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki. It is relevant to note that in the said civil proceedings the petitioner was not joined as party respondent and the decree was passed in absence of the petitioner. In the meantime, the proceedings were also initiated by the petitioner before the authorities under the Act. 10. It is relevant to note that in the said civil proceedings the petitioner was not joined as party respondent and the decree was passed in absence of the petitioner. In the meantime, the proceedings were also initiated by the petitioner before the authorities under the Act. 10. The petitioner applied for his tenancy right against the original landlord as well as Shri Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki and Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No. 63 of 1990 declared the petitioner as tenant of the disputed land and claim of Shri Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki was dismissed. Said order came to be passed on 30.07.1994 Necessary entry was made in the revenue record to the aforesaid effect. The said order was challenged by Shri Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki by filing appeal. However, the said appeal came to be withdrawn by Shri Ravjibhai Mathurbhai Solanki on 07.04.1997 and therefore the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT attained finality. It has also transpired from the record that after the order was passed by Mamlatdar & ALT, possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner in presence of Ravjibhai Solanki and original landlord on 04.08.1997 and necessary Panchnama was also prepared. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute in pursuant to the orders passed by the authorities under the Tenancy Act. 11. Thereafter, purchase price was also fixed under Section 32G of the Act by Mamlatdar & ALT and purchase certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner on 11.08.1997 Necessary entry was mutated in revenue record. However, the said order was challenged by the respondent No. 2 before the Appellate Authority viz. Collector. The Collector remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & ALT for fixing the purchase price after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2. At this stage, it is relevant to note that on the basis of the civil proceedings filed by the respondent No. 2 against Ravjibhai Solanki wherein the petitioner was not a party, possession of the land in dispute was taken over from the petitioner on the basis of the execution proceedings filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Civil Court. Thus, when the petitioner approached before the Mamlatdar & ALT for fixing the price under Section 32G of the Act pursuant to order passed by the Collector when the matter was remanded back to Mamlatdar & ALT, it was held that petitioner is not in possession of the land in dispute and therefore price cannot be fixed and petitioner was directed to file proceedings under Section 84 of the Act. When the petitioner filed application under Section 84 of the Act for getting the possession of the disputed land, Deputy Collector held that the matter is subjudice before the Civil Court and therefore his application was not entertained and dismissed by order dated 29.10.2004 The said order was confirmed by the Tribunal. 12. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 85 of the Act, which provides as under: “85. Bar of jurisdiction. (1) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, a Manager, [the Collector, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal or the State Government] in appeal or revision or the [State] Government in exercise of their powers of control. (2) No order of the Mamlatdar, the Tribunal, the Collector or the [Gujarat Revenue Tribunal] or the [State] Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section a Civil Court shall include a Mamlatdar's Court constituted under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906.” 13. When the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in the Civil Court, the decree passed by the Civil Court cannot be said to be binding to the petitioner. 14. The petitioner was declared as tenant of the disputed land in the proceedings being Tenancy Case No. 63 of 1990 and the claim of Shri Ravjibhai Solanki was dismissed. When the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in the Civil Court, the decree passed by the Civil Court cannot be said to be binding to the petitioner. 14. The petitioner was declared as tenant of the disputed land in the proceedings being Tenancy Case No. 63 of 1990 and the claim of Shri Ravjibhai Solanki was dismissed. The appeal filed by Shri Ravjibhai Solanki against the said order was also withdrawn by him on 07.04.1997 Purchase price was also fixed under Section 32G of the Act by Mamlatdar & ALT, Anand and purchase certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner on 11.08.1997 However, the Collector remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar & ALT for fixing the purchase price after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 and in the meantime pursuant to the civil proceedings filed by respondent No. 2 the possession of the land in dispute was taken over from the petitioner. The concerned authority has thereafter not entertained the application of the petitioner under Section 32G of the Act on the ground that he is not in possession of the land. Hence, he filed proceedings under Section 84 of the Act. The application under Section 84 of the Act was also not entertained in view of the fact that the matter was subjudice before the Civil Court. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the Deputy Collector ought to have considered the application under Section 84 of the Act independently land without being influenced by the pendency of the civil proceedings before the Civil Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is declared as tenant by the Authority under the Act and he was put in possession on the strength of order passed by the authorities under the Act. However, as observed hereinabove, pursuant to the civil proceedings wherein the petitioner was not a party he was dispossessed from the land in dispute. Thus, the authority under the Act is required to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 84 of the Act on its own merits. 15. However, as observed hereinabove, pursuant to the civil proceedings wherein the petitioner was not a party he was dispossessed from the land in dispute. Thus, the authority under the Act is required to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 84 of the Act on its own merits. 15. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 86 of 1979 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 106 of 1979 and relied on by the respondent No. 2 - party-in-person is not applicable as the said decision was not on merit and was about the maintainability of the LPA. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Deputy Collector and order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside. Similarly, order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 14901 of 2011 is also set aside. The matter is ordered to be remanded back to the Deputy Collector with a direction to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 84 of the Act on its own merits and without being influenced by the decision taken by the Civil Court in civil proceedings, within a, period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.