JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. The appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 08.10.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.7244 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge [Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri] confirmed the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN.BA.817/1992. 2. Certain facts recorded about earlier proceedings in para 2 about round of litigations undertaken by the parties are not in dispute, which reads as under: In the year 1962, proceedings under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy Act were initiated by the competent authority by registering Tenancy Case No. 371/1962 for the lands bearing Survey No. 1272 admeasuring 2 Acres 29 Gunthas and Survey No. 1542 admeasuring 0.0 Acres 38 Gunthas situated in the sim of Village Changa, Taluka Petlad, District Anand. The competent authority vide order dated 26.11.1962 held that the predecessors of the petitioner and original opponents nos. 2 to 5 are not the tenants of the lands in question. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 179/1982 before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector after hearing the respective parties and after considering the material produced before it, allowed the said appeal. Against the said order, the respondents no. 1 to 1/3 preferred Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 2043/1982 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 03.09.1984 remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Petlad for fresh inquiry. Pursuant thereto, the Mamlatdar and ALT issued fresh notices to the concerned parties, vide order dated 20.12.1990 held that the deceased Shanabhai Ghanabhai Baraiya was a tenant and he is entitled to purchase the said suit lands from the landlords under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act ["the Act" for short]. Against the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT Petlad, the respondent no. 1 and his heirs preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 412 of 1992 before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 06.08.1992 rejected the said appeal. Against the said order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT Petlad, the respondent no. 1 and his heirs preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 412 of 1992 before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector vide order dated 06.08.1992 rejected the said appeal. In addition to the above, as appeared from the record, proceedings under Section 32 1B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 [for short, 'BT & AL Act'] were initiated by registering Tenancy Case No.127/77 and by order dated 30.04.1978 the proceedings were dropped by holding that the provisions of the said section were not applicable to the facts of the case. The heirs of the deceased tenant preferred Tenancy Appeal No.1408/1989 before the Deputy Collector, Kheda which came to be dismissed on 17.08.1989 with observation that tenant may file an application under Section 32(o) of the BT & AL Act, if so advised. Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the above nature of observations, landlord approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing Revision Application No.TEN.BA.320/83 in which the Tribunal struck down direction qua Section 32(o) of the Act by an order dated 10.09.1985. 3. Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India discloses no reasons and it referred to events of earlier round of litigation in brief and what transpired before the lower authorities viz. Mamlatdar & ALT, Deputy Collector and the Tribunal for which agreement is recorded. In absence of any discussion of the nature of findings, conclusions of lower authority as are found just and proper, the writ petition came to be dismissed and the same deserves to be interferred with. At the same time, taking us through the merit of the appeal, it is contended that a statement made by deceased-tenant Shanabhai Ghanabhai Baraiya recorded on 14.10.1962 in proceedings under Section 32G that since the year 1947 deceased Shanabhai was not cultivating the suit land and, therefore, he was not a deemed purchaser and the suit land under Section 32 of the Act is of no consequence for deciding and determining the status as tenant and exercising power under the Act. It is further submitted that by virtue of operation of Section 32 of the BT & AL Act and such record qua suit land available would reveal deceased - Shanabhai was cultivating the land and in addition to the above, nature of inquiry envisaged in such a case by concerned Mamlatdar exercising power under a benevolent piece of Legislature enacted require crosschecking about occupancy of the suit land. In support of submissions, as above, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision reported in the case of Bhikubhai Bhima Gaidhane and Anr. v. Khandu Daji Pagar & Anr. [ AIR 1973 Bom 101 ] wherein proceedings under Section 32G were initiated and statement was made by tenant of similar nature about surrendering the suit land to the landlord and the learned Single Judge held that simply because the tenant makes a statement that he was no more in possession, the same cannot be treated as truth as he has given up his tenancy rights and cannot be accepted. The contention of landlord about surrendering tenancy rights by the tenant based on a statement came to be negated. Para 7 of the judgment in the case of Bhikubhai Bhima Gaidhane [supra] reads as under: "5. Now Section 32 of the Tenancy Act declares the tenant as a deemed purchaser of the land, which he holds as a tenant on 1st April 1957, the tiller's day. Every tenant is deemed to have purchased from his landlord on 1st of April, 1957 the land free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on that day. The persons who becomes a deemed purchaser should be a permanent tenant and should cultivate the land personally and if he is not a permanent tenant, he should be the person who cultivates the land. Now we have other sections relating to the deemed purchase. Under Section 32G after the tillers' day the Tribunal shall publish a public notice in the prescribed form in each village calling upon the tenants, who under Section 32 are deemed to have purchased land and landlords of such lands and all other persons interested therein to appear before it on the dates specified in notice. The tribunal shall issue a notice individually to each such tenant, landlord and other person. The tribunal shall issue a notice individually to each such tenant, landlord and other person. Under sub-clause (2) the Tribunal shall record in the prescribed manner statement of the tenant ascertaining whether he is or is not willing to purchase land held by him as a tenant. If he does not appear then the Tribunal can declare that such tenant is not willing to purchase and that the purchase is ineffective. If the tenant is willing to purchase then every other step will have to be followed. Now, there were proceedings under Section 32G in respect of the land held by the respondent as a tenant. Because the respondent is said to have made a statement before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, that he was neither in possession of the land on 1-4-1957, nor was he a tenant, the proceedings were dropped. Although there is no order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal on record it is said that the said Tribunal also passed the order that the respondent was not a tenant and not in possession of the land and that therefore, the proceedings under Section 32G were ordered to be dropped". 4. Inter alia, it is submitted that what weighed with the Tribunal in the facts of the present case was not holding deceased - Shanabahi as tenant on the basis of his own voluntary admission in the year 1962 that on the tiller's day he was not cultivating the land and proceedings under Sections 32 1B also attained finality and in the second round of litigation the above fact was brought to the notice of concerned authority and still it was held in favour of the tenant. The applicability of principles of res judicata on the ground of finalization of proceedings under Section 32 1B of the BT & AL Act is misconceived inasmuch as by the order passed on 30.04.1978 proceedings were dropped by holding that provisions of the said section were not applicable and further litigation was undertaken by aggrieved party only with regard to observations made in the order by the appellate authority and it was open for the tenant to undertake proceedings under Section 32(o) of the Act if so advised and in revisional jurisdiction such observations were struck down. The above proceedings and outcome there of had no relevance in the second round of litigation arose out of order of remand dated 03.09.1984 passed in Revision Application TEN.BA No. 2043/82 by the Tribunal whereby the Mamlatdar and ALT was directed to hold a fresh inquiry with regard to the subject matter. 5. It is next contended that there was finding about delay in preferring appeal after a period of 20 years against the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 26.11.1962 and some collusion or alleged conspiracy with Zaverben in litigation further are of no significance so far as merit of the subject matter is concerned since the above aspect of delay was neither raised in earlier proceedings and in view of remand order dated 03.09.1984 in earlier revision application, the Mamlatdar and ALT had undertaken exercise of fresh inquiry which favoured the legal heirs of the original deceased tenant. As no material was available, presumption drawn about collusion or conspiracy is also de void of merit according to learned counsel for the appellant. One Pravinbhai was handling the case of Zaverben, has reflected. Further upon issuance of notice, payment was made in the year 1993 and certificate of sale was issued under Section 32M of the BT & AL Act. 6. As against above, Mr. Maulik Soni learned advocate appearing for respondent no.6 as newly joined party pursuant to amendment granted by this Court vide Order dated 12.12.2012, passed in Civil Application No.11178/2012 is a Power of Attorny of Anantakumari Purshottambhai Patel, purchaser of the subject land vide sale deed dated 15.03.2012 and 03.04.2012 for Survey Nos. 1272 and 1524 respectively, submits that specific contention was raised before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal about collusion between the Petitioner and Zaverben, wife of Chunibhai Govindbhai Patel, a landlord whose statement was recorded inspite of the fact that her husband Chunibhai Govindbhai Patel was alive and was pursuing litigation before all authorities. Not only that but initially Mamlatdar and ALT issued Notice to the parties pursuant to oral order dated 03.09.1982 passed in Revision Application No.TEN BA 2043 of 1982, hearing was kept on 22.11.1990 and by tampering the said date it was changed to 20.11.1990 in which statement of Zaverben wife of Chunibhai Patel was recorded. Not only that but initially Mamlatdar and ALT issued Notice to the parties pursuant to oral order dated 03.09.1982 passed in Revision Application No.TEN BA 2043 of 1982, hearing was kept on 22.11.1990 and by tampering the said date it was changed to 20.11.1990 in which statement of Zaverben wife of Chunibhai Patel was recorded. Admittedly, Chunibhai Patel died later on i.e. on 08.02.1992 and under no circumstances when original land owner was alive statement of his wife Zaverben could have been recorded particularly statement was made by Shanabhai, the deceased tenant earlier that he was not cultivating the suit land since 15 years and was recorded in the order dated 26.11.1962 by Mamlatdar and ALT. It is further submitted that no evidence was produced by the tenant either of receipt of land revenue, crops sharing or examining adjoining land owner except bare oral version of Becharbhai. Only because some entries in the revenue record about occupancy of the land by tenant appear would not establish that legal heirs of the deceased tenant Shanabhai were cultivating the land on specified date or thereafter. It is, therefore, submitted that order passed by learned Single Judge is based on appreciation of findings and reasoning on the basis of conclusion were drawn by lower authorities warrant no interference and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Ms. Khyati Hathi, learned advocate appearing for successors of landlord respondent nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3 states that order passed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal impugned in the writ petition suffers from no illegality and while adopting arguments canvassed by the learned advocate on behalf of respondent no.6, it is reiterated that the appellant failed to bring any evidence about cultivation of land either for Survey No. 1272 or Survey No.1524 and as per own admission of the deceased tenant Shanabhai, he was not holding the above land and, therefore, proceedings were correctly dropped earlier. Even belatedly an attempt made by undertaking proceedings under Section 31 1B in the year 1977 by the tenant were dropped and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly applied principles of res judicate. It is submitted that barring the appellant no other legal heirs of the tenant made any grievance and repeated attempts are made to disturb established and recognised title and possession of landlord throughout these many years, deserves to be dealt with strictly. It is submitted that barring the appellant no other legal heirs of the tenant made any grievance and repeated attempts are made to disturb established and recognised title and possession of landlord throughout these many years, deserves to be dealt with strictly. That filing of Tenancy Appeal No. 179/82 before the Deputy Collector, Petlad against the order dated 26.11.1962 passed by Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No.371/1962 while registering under Section 32 (G) of the BT & AL Act, was barred by delay and laches and, therefore, the learned Single Judge found no illegality and impropriety in the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition, deserves to be confirmed. So far as respondent no.1/1 is concerned, Ananttaraben Wd/o. Deceased Pravinbhai Chunibhai, as per information, died on 04.09.2016 but respondent nos.1/2 and 1/3 legal heirs of the above deceased widow are already on record, so no other application is preferred for bringing legal heirs. 8. Having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties, submissions made by them and perusal of orders passed in two rounds of litigations by Mamlatdar and ALT, Deputy Collector, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal following are our conclusions. a. In the proceedings undertaken by the Mamlatdar and ALT under Section 32(G) of BT & AL Act qua lands bearing Survey No. 1272 admeasuring 2 Acres 29 Gunthas and Survey No. 1542 admeasuring 0.0 Acres 38 Gunthas situated in the sim of Village Changa, Taluka Petlad, District Anand, deceased Shanabhai a tenant no doubt made a statement before Mamlatdar and ALT and it was recorded on 14.10.1962 that he was not cultivating the suit land since 1947 and based on above, the above proceedings came to be dropped. b. Tenancy Appeal No.179/1982 before Deputy Collector, Petlad, though preferred after 20 year, it was allowed and against which Revision Application No.TEN.BA. 2043/82 was preferred before Gujarat Revenue Tribunal came to be allowed vide order dated 03.09.1982 by quashing and setting aside both the orders and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT. In the above order of remand by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, reliance was placed on a decision reported in AIR 1973 Bombay 101 in the case of Bhikubai Bhima Gaidhane and another v. Khandu Daji Pagar and another of the High Court of Bombay, in which it was held as under: "7. In the above order of remand by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, reliance was placed on a decision reported in AIR 1973 Bombay 101 in the case of Bhikubai Bhima Gaidhane and another v. Khandu Daji Pagar and another of the High Court of Bombay, in which it was held as under: "7. The Tenancy Act is brought into operation on account of disputes between landholders and tenants and also for ensuring full and efficient use of lands for agriculture; and to see that landlords do not use devices to evict tenants for some reason or the other. The provision of this Act therefore is to further the interests of tenants who may be ousted by landlords in their own interest. We may have therefore to refer to Section 15 to judge the plea of the landlord who says that the statement of the respondent-tenant that he was not a tenant and that he was not in possession of the land should be taken into consideration to decide that he was no more a tenant. Under Section 15 a tenant may terminate the tenancy in respect of any land at any time by surrendering his interest therein in favour of the landlord. Such surrender shall be in writing and verified before the Mamlatdar in a prescribed manner. Where a tenant surrenders his tenancy the landlord shall be entitled to retain the land so surrendered. Mamlatdar also in this connection shall hold an inquiry and decide whether the landlord is entitled to retain the whole or any portion of the land so surrendered and specify the extent and price in that behalf. The landlord also should get an order for getting possession under Section 29 (2). The landlord shall obtain possession of any land held by a tenant only under an order of the Mamlatdar. For obtaining such an order he shall make an application in the prescribed form and within a period of two years from the date on which he becomes entitled to obtain possession of the land. Now. the legislature by enacting these provisions has safeguarded the interest of the tenants who may be ousted by an unscrupulous landlord. For obtaining such an order he shall make an application in the prescribed form and within a period of two years from the date on which he becomes entitled to obtain possession of the land. Now. the legislature by enacting these provisions has safeguarded the interest of the tenants who may be ousted by an unscrupulous landlord. But the landlord in the instant case says that because the tenant has made a statement before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he was no more a tenant and that he was no more in possession, it should be treated as good as his giving up his tenant's rights. That certainly cannot be accepted. 8. Undoubtedly the record shows that the respondent was a tenant of the land from the years 1952-53 to 1964-65. No wonder therefore that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal had started proceedings under Section 32G. Because of the statement of the respondent-tenant the Agricultural Lands Tribunal dropped the proceedings. Now the statement of the respondent merely shows that he had surrendered his tenancy and that he has given up his possession. However, his statement will not stop the operation of a social legislation which is for the benefit of tenants and which is to safeguard their interests. Even if, therefore the respondent-tenant says that he had surrendered his possession, things ought to have taken place according to law. Termination of tenancy by virtue of surrender should be in accordance with Section 15. Possession by a landlord should be in accordance with Section 29. It cannot be in any other way. It cannot certainly be merely as a result of the statement of a tenant in Section 32G proceedings. It, therefore, cannot be said that the alleged statement of the tenant in the instant case leads only to one inference and that is that he ceased to be a tenant and that he ceased to be in possession of the land." (emphasis supplied) According to Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, no doubt the statement was made by the deceased tenant to the effect of surrendering his possession before 15 years and even the landlord making statement that tenant had handed over the possession before 10 years, in fact, name of the tenant was shown in the Revenue Record till the time when the statement was made and even thereafter. Though Deputy Collector was justified in setting aside the order passed by the ALT, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal was of the opinion that the case ought to have been remanded to Mamlatdar and ALT to record the evidence and to decide the matter in accordance with law. Thus, simply because the deceased tenant made a statement and was recorded by Mamlatdar in the year 1962 about not cultivating the land was not sufficient enough according to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In the above proceedings, no contention with regard to delay of 20 years in filing appeal before the Deputy Collector in the year 1982 against the order of 26.11.1962 was taken and considered. In second round of litigation, based on the above, Mamlatdar & ALT held in favour of tenant and confirmed by Deputy Collector. Thus, it was not open to GRT to take a different view on the issue of Law in the second round of litigation. Then, thirdly, by Order and communication as per the record, a xerox copy of payment of Rs.9852/made by the successors of the deceased tenant towards purchase price so fixed is produced on record along with Certificate under Section 32(M) of BT & AL Act, 1948 in favour of Becharbhai Shanabhai Baraiya and widow Andarben Chhayabhai Shanabhai. The above Certificate under Section 32(M) of the Act was granted subject to restriction under Section 43 of the Act and not to be alienated in any manner or to create any encumbrance on the said lands namely Survey Nos. 1272 and 1542 situated in the sim of Village Changa, Taluka Petlad, District Anand, without seeking prior permission of the competent authority. 9. The above Certificate under Section 32(M) of the BT & AL ACT remained final as there was no challenge and thus the tenant became the owner of the Land. 10. In view of the above uncontroverted facts, admittedly the suit land is purchased by respondent no.6 vide two sale deeds dated 15.03.2012 and 03.04.2012 for Survey Nos. 1272 and 1524 respectively and in addition to above, Letters Patent Appeal No.199 of 2011, the present proceedings were pending before this Court. Resultant effect of such purchase when restrictions were imposed upon tenant pursuant to Certificate under Section 32(M) of the BT & AL Act is that such transfer/ sell in favour of respondent no.6 is contrary of provisions of BT & AL Act. Resultant effect of such purchase when restrictions were imposed upon tenant pursuant to Certificate under Section 32(M) of the BT & AL Act is that such transfer/ sell in favour of respondent no.6 is contrary of provisions of BT & AL Act. The tenant being the owner of the land, it could not have been sold by erstwhile landlord, for which at this stage we do not want to comment any further keeping it open for the competent authority to take appropriate action, if deemed proper. 11. So far as ground of res judicata applied by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on the ground that proceedings under Section 32 1B initiated by tenant in the year 1977, which came to be terminated and thereafter no appeal could have been preferred before the Deputy Collector in the year 1982 against the order of 1962 passed by Mamlatdar and ALT, owes scrutiny, do not stand inasmuch as the above proceedings came to be terminated on the ground of maintainability and no issue involved in subsequent proceedings was directly or substantially decided attracting provision of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 12. We find force in the submissions made by Mr. Nikhil Kariel learned advocate for the applicant based on law laid down by the High Court of Bombay in the decision of Bhikubai Bhima Gaidhane and another v. Khandu Daji Pagar and another (Supra) that because the tenant has made a statement before the Mamlatdar and ALT and, therefore, he was no more tenant and no more in possession and it should be treated as good as his giving up his tenancy rights, is not correct position of law and duty is cast upon Mamlatdar and ALT to hold proper inquiry and in the above case ALT had dropped the proceedings based on the statement of the tenant that he had surrendered his tenancy and had given up his possession, but at the same time operation of the social legislation, which is for the benefit of the tenants and also to safeguard their interest, will not stop their termination of tenancy by virtue of surrender should be in accordance with Section 15 of the Act at the same time possession of the landlord should be in accordance with Section 29 of the Act. As we are in agreement with the law laid down by the High Court of Bombay in the decision of Bhikubai Bhima Gaidhane and another v. Khandu Daji Pagar and another (Supra), which still holds good, order passed by the learned Single Judge impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal, in view of the above and collective and conjoint appreciation of law as well as facts of the subject, and accordingly the order is quashed and setaside. The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 13. This order shall have no bearing on any other proceedings pending with regard to the subject suit land before any other forum or Court of law.