JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. Both the petitions being interconnected with each other in respect of the same subject land arising out of the common order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the GRT’ for short), the same were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The Special Civil Application No.4934 of 1992 is directed against the common order dated 30.10.1991 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application being No.TEN.B.A.74/1985. The Special Civil Application No.4937 of 1992 is directed against the same order passed in Revision Application being No.TEN.B.A.75/1985 filed by the Respondent-Shivrambhai before the Tribunal. 3. The short facts giving rise to these petitions are that the Mamlatdar and ALT, Deesa had initiated the proceedings under section 32O read with section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tenancy Act’), pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, in the RTS Appeal filed by the Respondent-Shivrambhai objecting against mutation of the name of the petitioner-Hasmukhbhai in respect of the subject land bearing Survey No.182/1 admeasuring 4 acres and 19 gunthas situated at village Kumbhariya, Taluka Danta, District Banskantha. In the said proceedings, the Mamlatdar and ALT vide the order dated 03.09.1983 held inter alia that the respondent-Shivrambhai was not the tenant in respect of the said land and that the sale made in favour of the petitioner Hasmukhbhai by the Respondent-Chandrakantbhai was not in violation of provisions of the Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent Shivrambhai preferred an appeal being No.25/1983 before the Deputy Collector, who vide the order dated 20.10.1984 dismissed the same. The Respondent-Shivrambhai preferred Revision Petition being No. TEN B.A.74/1985 before the GRT. It is pertinent to note that the said Respondent Shivrambhai had also filed an application under section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act before the Mamlatdar, Danta, seeking declaration that he was the tenant in respect of the subject land. The said case was registered as the Tenancy Case No.70B/ 737/1981. The Mamlatdar, Danta vide the order dated 26.03.1984 allowed the said application and held inter alia that the said Respondent-Shivrambhai was the tenant in respect of the subject land. The said case was registered as the Tenancy Case No.70B/ 737/1981. The Mamlatdar, Danta vide the order dated 26.03.1984 allowed the said application and held inter alia that the said Respondent-Shivrambhai was the tenant in respect of the subject land. The petitioner Hasmukhbhai being aggrieved by the said order filed the Tenancy Appeal being No.24/1984 before the Deputy Collector claiming to be the owner of the land in question by virtue of the sale deed executed by the Respondent-Chandrakant in his favour on 16.05.1980. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Deputy Collector vide the order dated 20.10.1984, whereby the Deputy Collector set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta. The aggrieved Respondent-Shivrambhai preferred Revision Application being No. TEN B.A.75/1985 before the GRT. The GRT vide the impugned common order dated 30.10.1991 allowed both the Revision Applications filed by the Respondent-Shivrambhai. Therefore, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Hasmukhbhai. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Thakor appearing with learned Counsel Ms. Archana Acharya for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner Hasmukhbhai was the power of attorney holder of the original owner Sumanbhai Naranbhai Patel, who was staying abroad. According to him, the Respondent-Shivrambhai was never the tenant in respect of the subject land, however, the said Shivrambhai, concocting one agreement dated 20.08.1979 allegedly executed by the said Sumanbhai had claimed tenancy rights in respect of the said land. He further submitted that the said Sumanbhai had sold out the land in question to the Respondent-Chandrakantbhai and Chandrakantbhai in turn had sold out the land to the petitioner Hasmukhbhai by executing registered sale deed on 16.05.1980 and therefore, the petitioner who himself was an agriculturist, was the owner of the land in question. According to Mr. Thakor, the Mamlatdar, Deesa in the proceedings conducted under section 32O read with section 84C of the Tenancy Act had rightly held vide the order dated 03.09.1983 that the said Shivrambhai was not the tenant and the sale made in favour of the petitioner-Hasmukhbhai was not in violation of provisions contained in Tenancy Act, however, the GRT while mis-appreciating the evidence on record set aside the said order of Mamlatdar and erroneously held that the Respondent-Shivrambhai was the tenant. Placing heavy reliance on the impugned order passed by the Tribunal he submitted that name of the Respondent-Shivrambhai was never entered in the revenue records as the tenant and he was paying charges and taxes as an employee on behalf of the original owner Sumanbhai Patel. 5. However, learned Senior Counsel Mr. B.B. Naik appearing with learned Counsel Mr. Parthiv Bhatt for the Respondent-Shivrambhai pressing into service various provisions contained in Tenancy Act and submitted that the provisions contained in section 32-O are merely declaratory in nature and that no inquiry is contemplated under the said provisions. He further submitted that the Respondent-Shivrambhai had already filed a substantive application under section 70(b) for declaring him as the tenant before the Mamlatdar, Danta and therefore, the Mamlatdar, Deesa had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 32O of the Tenancy Act under the guise of the inquiry under section 84C of the Tenancy Act. He further submitted that the petitioner had not stepped into the witness box in the proceedings under section 70(b), though other witnesses including the Respondent-Chandrakant were examined on behalf of the petitioner in the said proceedings. According to him, the Tribunal having rightly appreciated the evidences in detail, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the said findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal. 6. Learned AGP Mr. Venugopal Patel appearing for the Respondent No.4 has also supported the order passed by the Tribunal. However, learned Counsel Ms. Nikita Barot for the Respondent No.2 has supported the contentions raised by learned Counsel Mr. Thakor appearing for the petitioner-Hasmukhbhai. 7. In the instant case, it appears that one Sumanbhai Naranbhai Patel was the original owner of the subject land, who had executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner Hasmukhbhai. It further appears that the said Hasmukhbhai as the power of attorney holder of Sumabhai Patel had executed a sale deed in favour of Respondent No.2Chandrakantbhai on 16.11.1976. Thereafter, the said Chandrakantbhai executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner Hasmukhbhai on 16.05.1980. The entry being No.542 also came to be mutated in the revenue records pertaining to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. However, the Respondent-Shivramnbhai raised objections against the said entry No.542. Thereafter, the said Chandrakantbhai executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner Hasmukhbhai on 16.05.1980. The entry being No.542 also came to be mutated in the revenue records pertaining to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. However, the Respondent-Shivramnbhai raised objections against the said entry No.542. The said objections of Shivrambhai came to be rejected by the Mamlatdar against which, RTS Appeal No.21/1980 was preferred by the said Shivrambhai before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector vide the order dated 07.08.1981 dismissed the appeal, however, observed inter alia that an inquiry was required to be conducted as to whether the said Hasmukhbhai was an agriculturist or not. In view of the said order passed by the Deputy Collector, the Mamlatdar & ALT, Deesa initiated the inquiry under section 32O read with section 84C of the Tenancy Act. The said case was registered as Tenancy Case No.648 of 1981. At the same time, the Respondent-Shivrambhai filed an application before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Danta seeking declaration under section 70(b) that he was the tenant in respect of the land in question. The Mamlatdar and ALT, Deesa after considering the evidence adduced by said Hasmukhbhai, Chandrakantbhai and Shivrambhai held vide the order dated 03.09.1983 that Shivrambhai was not the tenant in respect of the said land and that there was no violation of the provisions contained in Tenancy Act with regard to the sale made in favour of the petitioner Hasmukhbhai. 8. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that the section 32O contains deeming provision to the effect that if any tenant is created after the Tiller’s Day i.e. 01.04.1957, the tenant cultivating personally shall be deemed to have purchased on the date of expiry of one year from the commencement of such tenancy from the landlord. However, in case of any dispute, as to whether a person was a tenant or not, he was required to seek declaration from the Mamlatdar under section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act. In such proceedings, the Mamlatdar was required to decide as to whether a person is or was tenant or protected or permanent tenant. As rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naik that section 32O of the Tenancy Act does not contemplate any inquiry as sought to be conducted by the Mamlatdar, Deesa under guise of making an inquiry under section 84C of the Tenancy Act. As rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naik that section 32O of the Tenancy Act does not contemplate any inquiry as sought to be conducted by the Mamlatdar, Deesa under guise of making an inquiry under section 84C of the Tenancy Act. As such there was no declaration sought by the Respondent-Shivrambhai in the said proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar, Deesa in the inquiry conducted by him under section 84C read with section 32O as to whether the said Shivrambhai was the tenant or not. The Court therefore finds substance in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Naik that the Mamlatdar, Deesa as such had no jurisdiction to decide whether the Respondent-Shivrambhai was the tenant or not, and that it was the Mamlatdar, Danta before whom the said Respondent-Shivrambhai had filed an application seeking declaration under section 70(b), who had the jurisdiction to decide the said issue. 9. Though it was sought to be submitted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakor for the petitioner that the petitioner Hasmukhbhai was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Mamlatdar, Danta in the proceedings under section 70(b) nor his advocate was permitted to appear in the said proceedings, the Court does not find any substance in the said submission. From the documents on record and more particularly the order passed by the Mamlatdar, Danta, it clearly transpires that the Advocate for petitioner had filed his appearance, and that witnesses examined by the Respondent-Shivrambhai were also cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. It is further required to be noted that the petitioner-Hasmukhbhai himself had not stepped into the witness box in the said proceedings under section 70(b) to dispute the claim of the Respondent-Shivrambhai to be the tenant of the subject land, though the petitioner had examined other witnesses. As against that the Respondent-Shivrambhai not only had examined himself but had also laid oral evidence by examining the witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence to show that he was cultivating the land. of course, the name of the Respondent was not entered in the revenue records as the tenant. According to learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakor for the petitioner, the Respondent was working as an employee of Sumanbhai Patel and that so called agreement dated 24.09.1976 was concocted document created by the Respondent-Shivrambhai in his favour to show that Sumanbhai Patel had created tenancy rights in his favour. According to learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakor for the petitioner, the Respondent was working as an employee of Sumanbhai Patel and that so called agreement dated 24.09.1976 was concocted document created by the Respondent-Shivrambhai in his favour to show that Sumanbhai Patel had created tenancy rights in his favour. Now, even if the said agreement is not considered then also the Respondent-Shivrambhai had laid sufficient evidence to show that he was the tenant in respect of the subject land. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence recorded before the Mamlatdar, Danta, had recorded the findings that the Shivrambhai was the tenant in respect of the subject land. The said finding of fact recorded by the GRT being just and proper, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to set aside the said findings. 10. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the GRT being just and proper, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. Both the petitions therefore are dismissed. Rule is discharged in both the petitions. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated forthwith. Petitions dismissed.