JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notices of Rule for respondents Nos. 2/1/1, 2/1/2, 2/1/3/1/1, 2/1/3/1/2, 2/1/3/1/3, 2/1/3/1/4, 2/1/3/1/5 and 2/1/3/1/6. Mr. Jaydeepsingh Rajput, learned advocate for Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 4. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate waives service of notices of Rule for respondents Nos. 5 to 11. Ms. Amita Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notices of Rule for respondents Nos. 12 and 13. Mr. Sunil S. Joshi, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for newly-added respondent No. 17. Though notices issued to respondents Nos. 1/1 to 1/10, 3/1/1, 3/2/1, 14/1, 14/2, 15/1 to 15/3 and 16 have been served, none has appeared on their behalf today. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally. 2. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, inter-alia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 03.08.2015, passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi, in Case No. 58/2014 and the order dated 16/23.10.2015, passed by the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeals), in Case No. ACB/TNC/Tenancy/Review/97/2015. 3. The subject-matter of the petition are the lands bearing Survey Nos. 137, 138, 142, 143, 183 and 184 of village Odhav, District Ahmedabad (the lands in question), which are stated to be the ancestral properties of the present petitioners. According to the petitioners, the lands were of new tenure. On 01.05.1982, an application was submitted to convert the lands from new tenure to old tenure. By an order dated 19.04.1983, passed by the City Deputy Collector, the lands were converted from new tenure to old tenure. One Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara, purported to be the tenant of the lands in question, initiated tenancy proceedings under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Tenancy Act" for short). The application was rejected by the City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad vide order dated 31.03.1986, by making specific observations that the said Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara was not a tenant of the lands in question, but was only a labourer, as per his own statement. The application was rejected by the City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad vide order dated 31.03.1986, by making specific observations that the said Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara was not a tenant of the lands in question, but was only a labourer, as per his own statement. Proceedings were initiated by Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara before the Mamlatdar and ALT who, by an order dated 20.04.1988, declared him to be a deemed purchaser of the lands in question since 01.04.1979. This order of the Mamlatdar and ALT was confirmed by the Deputy Collector, against which order a Revision Application was preferred before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ("GRT" for short). 4. The GRT by an order dated 25.08.2000, rejected the Revision Application filed by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they were unaware of the order passed by the GRT. A petition, being Special Civil Application No. 3094/2001, came to be filed before this Court by the brothers of the petitioners, allegedly by practicing fraud and showing Shantaram, who was the father of the petitioners, to be petitioner No. 2, although the said Shantaram had already died. The petition was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2010. 5. Immediately thereafter, on 01.11.2010, a registered Sale Deed came to be executed by the Power of Attorney of Jairambhai Bababhai Chunara in favour of respondents Nos. 5 to 11 which, according to the petitioners, could not have been executed. The petitioners filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1001/2013 before the Division Bench, challenging the order dated 30.09.2010, passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3094/2001. The Division Bench passed an order dated 27.08.2013, allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the GRT. While passing the said order, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the GRT for fresh decision on merits. 6. In the remand proceedings, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the GRT passed an order dated 14.10.2014, quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT as well as the Deputy Collector. The GRT further remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT for fresh decision on the aspect whether Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara was a tenant of the lands in question, or not. The GRT further remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar and ALT for fresh decision on the aspect whether Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara was a tenant of the lands in question, or not. Pursuant to the remand, the Mamlatdar and ALT passed the order dated 03.08.2015, which is impugned in the present petition. The said order of the Mamlatdar and ALT has been confirmed by the Deputy Collector vide the order dated 16/23.10.2015, which is the second order impugned in the petition. It is in the above background that the petitioners have approached this Court. 7. Mr. Tattvam K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order of the Mamlatdar and ALT has been passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as no notice was served upon the petitioners and the said order has been passed behind their backs. It is further submitted that not only is the impugned order of the Mamlatdar and ALT violative of the principles of natural justice, it is also without jurisdiction. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has quashed and set aside the earlier order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 20.04.1988. However, by the impugned order, the Mamlatdar has himself restored and reinstated his earlier order that has been quashed and set aside, which aspect is beyond his jurisdiction. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the impugned order, the Mamlatdar has gone beyond the directions issued by the GRT in the order of remand. The only aspect that was to be decided by the Mamlatdar was whether Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara was a tenant of the lands in question, or not. Instead of that, the Mamlatdar has exceeded his jurisdiction and has decided the validity of the registered Sale Deed executed by Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara in favour of respondents Nos. 5 to 11. 8. With regard to the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that this order contains no reasons, whatsoever. Without recording any reasons, leave alone cogent reasons, the Deputy Collector has confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. This order has also been passed behind the backs of the petitioners and without granting them an opportunity of hearing. Hence, it is submitted that both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. Without recording any reasons, leave alone cogent reasons, the Deputy Collector has confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. This order has also been passed behind the backs of the petitioners and without granting them an opportunity of hearing. Hence, it is submitted that both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the event that the Court is inclined to set aside the orders of the Mamlatdar and ALT and the Deputy Collector and remand the matter, the rights of the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings with regard to the Sale Deed executed by respondents Nos. 5 to 11 in favour of respondent No. 17 may not be prejudicially affected. 10. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 11 has submitted that insofar as the aspect of the violation of the principles of natural justice is concerned, the Court may pass appropriate orders. However, the said respondents would have something to say regarding the merits of the case and the validity of the Sale Deed executed by Jerambhai Bababhai Chunara in their favour, therefore, this Court may not go into that aspect, at this stage. It is further submitted that in the event that the Court is inclined to set aside the order of the Mamlatdar and remand the matter, some time-limit may be fixed. 11. Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Sunil S. Joshi, learned advocate for newly-added respondent No. 17, submits that insofar as the quashing and setting aside of the impugned order of the Mamlatdar on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice is concerned, he would support the stand taken by Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for respondents Nos. 5 to 11. 12. Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned advocate for respondents Nos. 2/1/1, 2/1/2, 2/1/3/1/1, 2/1/3/1/2, 2/1/3/1/3, 2/1/3/1/4, 2/1/3/1/5 and 2/1/3/1/6, submits that t he said respondents have no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Mamlatdar for fresh decision. 13. Ms. Amita Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 12, Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi and respondent No. 13, Deputy Collector, (LR) (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who have been joined by name, submits that it is clear from the order of the Mamlatdar that notices were taken out by the Mamlatar, as this aspect is mentioned in the impugned order. 14. 13. Ms. Amita Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 12, Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi and respondent No. 13, Deputy Collector, (LR) (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who have been joined by name, submits that it is clear from the order of the Mamlatdar that notices were taken out by the Mamlatar, as this aspect is mentioned in the impugned order. 14. To this Mr. Tattvam K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order only states that notices were taken out. Nowhere it is stated that notices were actually issued and served. Hence, when the petitioners have not been served with notices, it amounts to passing the order behind their backs which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. 15. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned orders and other documents on record. 16. The first and foremost aspect that is required to be decided is whether the impugned orders are legally sustainable or not, having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. There does not appear to be any opposition by the respondents, insofar as this aspect is concerned. None of the respondents have disputed the assertion of the petitioners that the said orders were passed without hearing the petitioners. 17. The only objection raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that in the order of the Mamlatdar, it is mentioned that notices were "take n out." The impugned order of the Mamlatdar appears to b e cleverly drafted. It is stated that notices were "take n out" but it is not stated that the notices were issue d or served. If the parties have not been served with notices and, for that reason they are unable to appear and make submissions, the order passed in their absence would amount to a violation of the principles o f natural justice. 18. An order passed behind the backs of the petitioners and in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot stand. Hence, the submission advanced by t he learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners have not been heard appears to be correct, as nowhere has it been stated in the impugned order of the Mamlatdar that the petitioners were heard. 19. Hence, the submission advanced by t he learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners have not been heard appears to be correct, as nowhere has it been stated in the impugned order of the Mamlatdar that the petitioners were heard. 19. Insofar as the impugned order of the Deputy Collector is concerned, it appears to be an order consisting of one long sentence, in which no reasons are indicated. In the first half of the sentence, the lands in question have been described and in the second half of the sentence the order of the Mamlatdar is confirmed. However, why and for what reason the Deputy Collector considered it appropriate to confirm the order of the Mamlatdar, is not stated. This order, as well, does not reveal that the petitioners were heard. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the order has been passed behind their backs is thus borne out from the record. 20. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and as there is an apparent violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned orders by the Mamlatdar and ALT and the Deputy Collector, the following order is passed: "(i) The orders dated 03.08.2015, passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi in Case No. 58/2014 and dated 16/23.10.2015, passed by the Deputy Collector in Case No. ACB/TNC/ Tenancy/Review/97/2015, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Dascroi, for fresh decision on merits, in view of the order dated 14.10.2014, passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. All consequential legal action taken under these orders also stands quashed and set aside, subject to fresh orders being passed by the authorities. (ii) The Mamlatdar and ALT shall hear all the concerned parties and take a fresh decision in terms of the order dated 14.10.2014 of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of the first hearing. All the parties shall cooperate with the hearing before the Mamlatdar and shall present themselves before him on 24.04.2017." 21. It is clarified that this order has been passed on the ground of the violation of the principles of natural justice and the Court has not entered into the merits of the case. All the parties shall cooperate with the hearing before the Mamlatdar and shall present themselves before him on 24.04.2017." 21. It is clarified that this order has been passed on the ground of the violation of the principles of natural justice and the Court has not entered into the merits of the case. The parties are at liberty to raise all contentions available to them on merits before the Mamlatdar and ALT. The legal rights of the petitioners, in order to raise objections regarding any of the Sale Deeds executed in respect of the lands in question, including the Sale Deed in favour of respondent No. 17, under the appropriate provisions of law, would not be curtailed by this order. The defence taken by respondents Nos. 5 to 11 and 17 is also kept open. 22. The petition is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed.