JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Harshraj C. Vaghela, learned advocate for Ms. Vashi, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Oza, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Patel, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. In present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2.3.2001 passed by the learned Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 81 of 1999 which was filed by present respondent No. 4. The petitioners have prayed that: "7(A) issue writ of certiorari or any appropriate, writ, order or direction quashing and set a siding the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal bearing No. DENBS 81/99 dated 2.3.2001 and confirm the order passed by Assistant Collector, Vyara in Tenancy Appeal No. 21 of 1998;" 3. So far as the factual background is concerned, it is averred and stated in the petition that: "3.1 The land in question bearing Survey No. 147/1, Plot No. 137 admeasuring 1 Hector 14 Sq. mtrs. originally belonged to the ownership of Late Maneksha Pestonji. After the demise of Maneksha Pestonji the names of the present petitioners were mutated as legal heirs in the record of rights. In the year 1978 2 acres of land out of total land was sold to respondent No. 4 by the father of the petitioner by a registered sale deed for price consideration of Rs. 3000/-. The remaining portion of the land in question remained in possession of the petitioners and they have been cultivating the said land till this date. On 17.11.1993 respondent No. 4 preferred an application under Section 70(b) of the Act putting forward a claim that he has been cultivating the land in question since last 13 years as a tenant and therefore he should be declared a tenant within the meaning of the Act. The earlier proceedings held by Mamlatdar in connection with this application were set aside by the Deputy Collector and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar for fresh consideration. The Mamlatdar after final adjudication of the claim put forward by respondent No. 4 came to be conclusion that there is evidence to show that respondent No. 4 has been cultivating the land in question as a tenant and therefore vide order dtd. 23rd March, 1998 declared respondent No. 4 as a tenant cultivating the land since 1981-82. The Mamlatdar after final adjudication of the claim put forward by respondent No. 4 came to be conclusion that there is evidence to show that respondent No. 4 has been cultivating the land in question as a tenant and therefore vide order dtd. 23rd March, 1998 declared respondent No. 4 as a tenant cultivating the land since 1981-82. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the Collector under Section 74 of the Act. The Assistant Collector, Vyara came to the conclusion that there was an iota of evidence to show that respondent No. 4 has been cultivating the land in question as a tenant. Besides this the Collector also recorded a finding that respondent No. 4 was serving as a mechanic at Ukai Workshop since 1958 and retired in 1994. It is difficult to believe that during this period respondent No. 4 was cultivating the land personally while in employment of Government. On overall appreciation of evidence on record Collector allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of the Mamlatdar declaring respondent No. 4 as tenant. 3.2 Respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the order of Collector allowing the appeal of the petitioner preferred a revision application under Section 76 of the Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector and confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar declaring respondent No. 4 as tenant." 4. Various contentions are raised by the petitioners against the order, however, learned advocate for the petitioners heavily relied on the affidavit dated 23.9.2015 and the document (Annexure-I) annexed to the said affidavit which purports to be a settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 4 on 25.8.1998. On the strength of the said document, it is contended that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the said material and relevant fact and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Mr. Oza, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 has heavily relied on the reply affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 and he reiterated the details and submissions stated in the affidavit dated 10.2.2014. The relevant details which are mentioned by respondent No. 4 in his affidavit are mentioned below: "2. 5. Mr. Oza, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 has heavily relied on the reply affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 and he reiterated the details and submissions stated in the affidavit dated 10.2.2014. The relevant details which are mentioned by respondent No. 4 in his affidavit are mentioned below: "2. At the outset, I respectfully state and submit that I am still in actual and physical possession and occupation of the land bearing Survey No. 47/1 (Paiki) Block No. 137 of village Wadi Bhesrot. My name also appears in the village form Nos. 7 & 12. Therefore the allegation in the said writ petition that I am not in possession is false and baseless and is not proved by any documents and evidence. I respectfully state and submit that I have been in continuous and uninterrupted actual physical possession, which can also be established on the basis of the earlier village form Nos. 7 & 12 of the land bearing Survey No. 47/1 (Paiki) dated 10.8.2002. It is also submitted that the said entry in the village form Nos. 7 & 12 also describes the land being covered by the provisions of Sec. 73AA of The Bombay Land Revenue Code and therefore it cannot be transferred to any person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe without the necessary permission. Under the circumstances on the above ground alone the writ petition under Art. 227 is required to be dismissed in limine and the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal bearing No. DENBS/81/99 dated 2.3.2001 is required to be confirmed. 3. It is further submitted with respect that even otherwise the finding of facts by the Learned Mamlatdar, Songadh (Annexure-A Page-15) dated 23.3.1998 is elaborate and exhaustive based on the true facts and appreciation of evidence recorded before him which is not required to be interfered with at this stage by this Hon'ble Court in this Writ Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I deny the allegation made in Para-3 and reiterate even the title of the land was required to be retained by me in view of the sale deed my father had become the owner of 2 acres of land. Rest of the facts stated in Para-3.1 of the Memo of Petition are true and correct. 4. I deny the allegation made in Para-3 and reiterate even the title of the land was required to be retained by me in view of the sale deed my father had become the owner of 2 acres of land. Rest of the facts stated in Para-3.1 of the Memo of Petition are true and correct. However the land has continued to be in possession of my family and it was being cultivated. Even during my absence for few years while I was working at Ukai and this fact has been proved before the Learned Mamlatdar is apparent from the order Annexure-A and it is only on account of that reason when the Mamlatdar declared me as the tenant as I continued to be in occupation and physical possession of the land and also the land having been cultivated by me and on my behalf. This aspect has been extensively dealt with by the Learned Mamlatdar in his order. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the order of the Mamlatdar at the time of hearing. 5. Referring to Para-3.2 of the petition, I deny all the allegations and statements made in the said para and respectfully submit that the order of the Mamlatdar has dealt with the evidence recorded and produced before it squarely and fairly and the petition does not disclose any such ground which requires interference at this stage by this Hon'ble Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India." 6. Having regard to the affidavit dated 23.9.2015 and the annexure of the said affidavit, i.e. agreement dated 25.8.1998, it appears that present petition can be disposed of at this stage by remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal with appropriate observations, instead of entering into and deciding rival contentions and controversy raised by the petitioners and respondent No. 4. 7. In this context, it is appropriate to take note of the fact that according to the petitioners, respondent No. 4 had instituted certain proceedings in November 1993 under Section 70(b) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Ac, 1948 ('the Act' for short) and prayed for declaration that he is a tenant cultivating the land of the petitioners. It appears that the Mamlatdar, vide his order dated 22.3.1998, allowed the application of respondent No. 4 and declared respondent No. 4 tenant' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act. 8. It appears that the Mamlatdar, vide his order dated 22.3.1998, allowed the application of respondent No. 4 and declared respondent No. 4 tenant' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 23.3.1998, the petitioners had approached the Collector, Vyara by filing an appeal. The said authority heard the parties and vide order dated 28.6.1999 the Collector set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar declaring respondent No. 4 as tenant cultivating the land of the petitioners. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, respondent No. 4 approached the learned Tribunal by way of revision application. The learned Tribunal allowed the revision application vide order dated 2.3.2001. Against the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have taken out this petition. 10. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly in light of the evidence available on record, respondent No. 4 could not have been considered deemed tenant under Section 4 of the Act. For this purpose, learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the statement of respondent No. 4 before the authority, wherein respondent No. 4, according to the petitioners, accepted that he was working as servant/employee with the petitioner and he cultivated the land as petitioner's employee. Of course, the said submission is vehemently disputed and denied by Mr. Oza, learned advocate for respondent No. 4. 11. The learned advocate for the petitioners also raised contention on the ground of limited scope of the learned Tribunal for entertaining revision application. The learned advocate for the petitioners actually emphasized the details stated in further affidavit dated 23.9.2015. Therefore, it would be appropriate to refer to the said affidavit. In the affidavit dated 23.9.2015, the petitioners have averred and stated that: "1. I am filing the present affidavit with a view to produce document on record. The learned advocate for the petitioners actually emphasized the details stated in further affidavit dated 23.9.2015. Therefore, it would be appropriate to refer to the said affidavit. In the affidavit dated 23.9.2015, the petitioners have averred and stated that: "1. I am filing the present affidavit with a view to produce document on record. It is stated and submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the Respondent No. 4 herein i.e. Maganbhai Somabhai Gamit has admitted the fact before the Village Panchayat as well as the elders that deceased Manekshah Pestanji had sold the land to him admeasuring about 2 Acres & 1 Gunthas and he further assured that he will not enter into any litigations with respect to the land in dispute in the present petition i.e. Land bearing S. No. 147/1 paiki Block No. 137 paiki, admeasuring about 1 Hector 14 Sq. Mtrs. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 4 herein i.e. Maganbhai Somabhai Gamit executed this document dated 25.8.1998 on his own volition after the order dated 28.6.1998 passed by Asst. Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 21 of 1998. 2. That in this view of the fact and document dated 25.8.1998, it is submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Respondent No. 4 has acquiesced his right to claim tenancy in the Land in question owned and possessed by the petitioners. Therefore, the Respondent No. 4 having been acquiesced and relinquished his right to claim Tenancy, the order impugned in the petition may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3. That the Respondent No. 4 herein having settled the matter once before a statutory authority and thereafter litigating against the present petitioner in itself goes to show the malafide intentions of Respondent No. 4 herein and also further goes to show that he is pursuing the present litigation after having settled the matter before the Village Panchayat only with certain oblique motives and for certain reasons best known to him." 12. Along with the said affidavit certain document (as annexure of the affidavit) is placed on record which purports to be declaration made by respondent No. 4 before the panchayat. The document which purports to be declaration of respondent No. 4, is, according to the petitioners' claim, signed by about 20 persons who are residents of the village and members of the panchayat. 13. The document which purports to be declaration of respondent No. 4, is, according to the petitioners' claim, signed by about 20 persons who are residents of the village and members of the panchayat. 13. The said declaration/statement appears to have been recorded before the panchayat on 23.5.1998, i.e. before the date on which the learned Tribunal decided the revision application. 14. It is not in dispute that the said document is not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while deciding the revision application. 15. Mr. Oza, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 submitted that the said document was probably not available on record before the learned Tribunal. 16. Be that as it may, the fact remains that any counter in response to the affidavit dated 23.9.2015 is not filed by respondent No. 4. 17. At the same time, it is also matter of fact that the said document, i.e. its veracity and genuineness has not been verified by any authority, i.e. by the learned Tribunal and/or even by the Collector (whose order runs in favour of the petitioners). 18. It is true that the order passed by the Collector is in favour of the petitioner, however, reference of the said document dated 25.8.1998 is not found from the Collector's order. Undisputedly, the learned Tribunal's order also does not refer to the said document. 19. It would not be possible for this Court to determine the genuineness or veracity of the said document. It would not be proper to mechanically rely on the said document only because counter affidavit is not filed by respondent No. 4. 20. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly having regard to the fact that when the Collector passed the order in favour of the petitioner and when the learned Tribunal exercised revisional powers they have not examined the case in light of the document on which reliance is placed by the petitioner. 21. Therefore, it appears appropriate to remand the proceedings to learned Tribunal where the petitioner can invite Tribunal's attention to the above mentioned document i.e. statement/declaration by the respondent No. 4 before Gram Panchayat and the respondent No. 4 may also get an opportunity to put forward his submission and/or objection if any, with regard to the said document. 22. 21. Therefore, it appears appropriate to remand the proceedings to learned Tribunal where the petitioner can invite Tribunal's attention to the above mentioned document i.e. statement/declaration by the respondent No. 4 before Gram Panchayat and the respondent No. 4 may also get an opportunity to put forward his submission and/or objection if any, with regard to the said document. 22. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the above discussed aspects, following order is passed: The order impugned in present petition i.e. order dated 2.3.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and proceedings are remanded to learned Tribunal for fresh order after hearing the petitioner and respondent No. 4. In view of the submission and request by Mr. Oza, learned advocate for the respondent No. 4 it appears appropriate to clarify that if the tribunal considers it necessary that evidence for determining the genuineness or veracity of the document in question is required then it would be open to the learned Tribunal to instruction the Collector to record evidence from the side of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 with regard to the document in question and decide the matter in light of such evidence which may be submitted by the Collector. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings are pending since 2001, it would be in the fitness of things and interest of justice that the learned Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the case and complete the proceedings expeditiously and preferably within four months. With the aforesaid clarifications the petition is partly allowed and the case stands remanded to the learned Tribunal. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Orders accordingly. Petition Partly Allowed