JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Devendra Rana, learned advocate for Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent and Mr. Patel, learned AGP. 2. In present petition the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:- "11(A) To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated at Annexure-D, E and F respectively passed by the learned Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal; and BE FURTHER PLEASED to order that the Tenancy Case No. 12/2003 be remanded to the learned Mamlatdar and Krushipanch, Choryasi for fresh hearing of the matter from the initial stage." 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by orders passed by the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and learned Revenue Tribunal. 3.1 In all orders concerned authorities and ultimately learned Tribunal have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. 3.2 Against such concurrent orders the petitioners have taken out present petition. 4. So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the record and submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners claim that they are tenants of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 585/1, Block No. 644 admeasuring 2 hectares, 20 acres and 55 gunthas. With such claim the petitioners instituted Tenancy Case No. 12 of 2003. 5. The petitioners claim that they instituted said proceedings i.e. Tenancy Case No. 12 of 2003 because they apprehended that in view of escalation price of the land the respondents intended to dispose of the land. 5.1 In the said proceedings the Mamlatdar and ALT recorded evidence and after considering the material available on record and the submissions by contesting parties, the Mamlatdar dismissed said Tenancy Case vide order dated 8.12.2003. 5.2 Against said order dated 8.12.2003 the petitioners filed Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2004 before Deputy Collector. 5.3 The Deputy Collector considered order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT and also considered the material available on record and rival submissions by the contesting parties and thereupon Deputy Collector reached to the findings of fact that there was no substance in the claim and allegations by the petitioners. The petitioners failed to establish their claim about tenancy and therefore Deputy Collector rejected the Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2004 vide order dated 17.12.2004. 5.4 Feeling aggrieved by said order dated 17.12.2004 the petitioners approached learned Tribunal by way or Revision Application No. 28 of 2005. The petitioners failed to establish their claim about tenancy and therefore Deputy Collector rejected the Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2004 vide order dated 17.12.2004. 5.4 Feeling aggrieved by said order dated 17.12.2004 the petitioners approached learned Tribunal by way or Revision Application No. 28 of 2005. Learned Tribunal also reached to the same findings recorded by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector. Learned Tribunal examined the material available on record and considered the submissions by contesting parties and considered all relevant aspects and independently reached to the same and similar findings recorded in previous orders and that therefore learned Tribunal confirmed the order passed by Deputy Collector and rejected the Revision Application vide order dated 25.9.2006. 5.5 Feeling aggrieved by said order the petitioners have taken out present petition. 6. Private respondents have opposed the petition. One Mr. M.C. Patel, respondent No. 11 has filed affidavit dated 2.10.2007. He has claimed that he is constituted attorney and Power of Attorney Holder of respondent Nos. 1 to 10. 7. So far as factual aspects involved in present petition are concerned the respondent has averred and stated that:- 3.1 The respondents No. 1 to 11 are owners of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 585/1 having Block No. 644, total admeasuring 23,067 sq. mtr. of agricultural land situated in the sim of village Puna, Tal. Charyashi, Dist. Surat.......... 3.2 The Petitioners No. 1 & 2 claiming to be alleged tenant of the said land had filed tenancy Case No. 12 of 2003 in the Court of Mamlatdar & A.L.T. (Tenancy), Choryasi at Surat under Section-70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had also submitted Application for stay under Section-70/nb of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Ld. Mamlatdar and A.L.T. after hearing concerned parties and their Advocates by speaking order dated 21.6.2003, was pleased to reject the said application on account of not establishing prima facie case by the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 of alleged tenancy right on the subject land. The Ld. Mamlatdar and ALT while deciding the said application considered the bills and other documentary evidence produced by the petitioner......... The said order was challenged by the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 through their Power of Attorney Holder and Advocate before the Ld. Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant at Surat being Tenancy Appeal No. 167 of 2003. The Ld. Mamlatdar and ALT while deciding the said application considered the bills and other documentary evidence produced by the petitioner......... The said order was challenged by the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 through their Power of Attorney Holder and Advocate before the Ld. Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant at Surat being Tenancy Appeal No. 167 of 2003. It is pertinent to note here that the power of attorney of the petitioners is involved in several land related criminal cases. The Respondent No. 11 craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to point out said criminal cases at the time of hearing of this petition. The Ld. Dy. Collector, Choryasi Prant vide his order dated 16.1.2002, rejected the said appeal on the grounds that the petitioners failed to proved their tenancy right over the land in question. The Ld. Deputy Collector has also considered the said bills and other evidence produced by the petitioners before the Ld. Mamlatdar and ALT........... Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had preferred Application being Revision Application No. BS/143/2003 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at the preliminary stage vide order dated 30.1.2004, rejected the said application and approved the findings recorded by the lower revenue authorities while rejecting the application u/s. 70(nb) of the Act. Hence, the order of the Ld. Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Choryasi, has been confirmed up to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 3.3 It is respectfully submitted that as the petitioners No. 1 and 2 had also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 95 of 2003 against the respondent No. 11 and other persons seeking inter-alia pending the Tenancy Case before the Ld. Mamlatdar and ALT, the defendants or their servants or their agents may be restrained from taking possession of the said land with the other Consequential prayers. It is stated on oath that no stay is granted in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 by the Civil Court in the said suit till today. 3.4 It is respectfully submitted that just to harass the owner of the subject land and with a view to abstract money to give the said land of a status of the disputed land, the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 had concocted one agreement of mortgage without possession in capacity of the alleged tenant of the said land with one Shri Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel on 24-10-2003. 1 & 2 had concocted one agreement of mortgage without possession in capacity of the alleged tenant of the said land with one Shri Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel on 24-10-2003. It is pertinent to note here that at that point of time the Ld. Mamlatdar and ALT & Ld. Dy. Collector had already rejected the application u/s. 70(nb) & appeal arising from the said rejection filed by the Petitioners No. 1 & 2. It is therefore clear that the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had not succeeded in getting any protection either from the Tenancy Court or from the Civil Court, the said agreement was concocted by the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 in collusion with one Mr. Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel with a view to abstract money from the land owners....... It is respectfully submitted that as per the said decisions of the tenancy courts the claim of the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 as a tenant of the land in question was rejected. The said Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel alleged mortgage with collusion of Petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 2004 in the Court of 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.) at Surat. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 -- defendants therein in collusion with the plaintiff passed one pursis that they have no objection if order of Status-quo is passed. The respondent No. 11 was joined as defendant in the said suit at his instant. In the said suit the respondent No. 11 has filed application for injunction. The said Shri Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel had filed application for alleged breach of the order of status--quo. He has further filed application to decide the said application for contempt prior to the application for contempt filed by him. Ld. Trial Judge has rejected the said application, hence he had preferred the Special Civil Application, in which ex-parte stay was granted. The said Shri Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel is not serving the unserved respondents with a view of prolong the matter. 3.5 Meantime, the Ld. Mamlatdar & A.L.T. vide his order dated 8.12.2003, dismissed the application preferred by Petitioners No. 1 & 2 under Section-70(b) of the Act being Tenancy Case No. 12 of 2003 after taking evidence.......It is respectfully submitted that in the said proceedings, the petitioners were represented by their Power of Attorney Holder Shri Ranmalbhai Nathubhai Ahir and also by an Advocate Shri Bharatsinh A. Gohil. It was admitted by the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 in their oral evidence that they are not cultivating the said land. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had preferred the Tenancy Appeal through their Power of Attorney under Section --74 of the Tenancy Act being Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2004 before the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat. The Ld. Dy. Collector, Choryasi Prant, Surat vide his order dated 17.12.2004, had rejected the said appeal. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 through their Power of Attorney had preferred Revision Application under Section--76 of the Tenancy Act before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal bearing TEN/BS/28/2005. The said application was rejected by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal vide its order 25.9.2006. During the pendency of that Revision Application, the said Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel had given application for joining party. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has rejected the said application.........The petitioners had preferred this petition before this Hon'ble Court almost after 11 months without explaining the delay filing the same in the memo of petition. 3.6 It is respectfully submitted that the respondent No. 11 being co-owner of the land in question, for the purpose of harassing him and extracting money from him, one after another litigations are initiated before the Civil Court and before the Tenancy Court claiming to be alleged tenant of the said land. It is respectfully submitted that to protect and save the property, the Respondent No. 11 had preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 822 of 2005 before the Civil Judge at Surat.......Shri Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Patel, who is original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 2004 had filed application u/s-10 of the C.P.C. to stay the said suit. The said application was entertained and allowed without appreciating and considering the order Passed by the Revenue Authorities, prayers stated in Regular Civil Suit No. 95 of 2003, Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 2004, and Regular Civil Suit No. 833 of 2005. The Ld. Trial Judge is not even hearing the injunction application submitted with said suit hence the Respondent No. 11 had preferred Special Civil Application No. 1285 of 2006 before this Hon'ble Court, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court at final hearing stage." 8. The Ld. Trial Judge is not even hearing the injunction application submitted with said suit hence the Respondent No. 11 had preferred Special Civil Application No. 1285 of 2006 before this Hon'ble Court, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court at final hearing stage." 8. From the affidavit filed by the respondent it has emerged that during the proceedings of Tenancy Case No. 12 of 2003 before Mamlatdar and ALT the petitioners herein had submitted an application for stay (under Section 70 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act) and after hearing concerned parties the authority rejected the said application and request by present petitioners vide his order dated 21.6.2003 holding inter alia, that the petitioners failed to establish prima facie case for any interim relief. 8.1 It is also necessary to note that the said interim order dated 21.6.2003 was challenged by the petitioners through their constituted attorney and advocate before Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 167 of 2003. The Deputy Collector rejected the said appeal vide order dated 16.10.2003. 8.2 Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioners had filed revision application which was registered as Revision Application No. 143 of 2003 before learned Tribunal. 8.3 Learned Tribunal rejected the said revision application vide order dated 30.1.2004. 8.4 It was thereafter that the orders dated 17.12.2004 and 25.9.2006 came to be passed by the Deputy Collector and by the learned Tribunal in substantive Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 2004 and Revision Application No. 28 of 2005 respectively. 9. From above mentioned details, it has emerged that actually, six orders, at different stages, have been passed by statutory authorities and learned Tribunal and the said orders are against the petitioners. 9.1 When the petitioners preferred applications for interim relief under Section 70(nb) of the Act (during pendency of the proceedings under Section 17(B) which came to be instituted by the petitioners by way of tenancy case No. 12 of 2003), three different orders i.e. order dated 21.6.2003 by the Mamlatdar, order dated 16.10.2003 by the Dy. Collector and the order dated 30.1.2004 came to be passed by the learned Tribunal with reference to the proceedings under Section 70(nb). 9.2 Thereafter, above mentioned orders dated 17.10.2004 and 25.9.2006 came to be passed by the Dy. Collector and the learned Tribunal in respect of the proceedings under section 17(B) of the Act. 10. Collector and the order dated 30.1.2004 came to be passed by the learned Tribunal with reference to the proceedings under Section 70(nb). 9.2 Thereafter, above mentioned orders dated 17.10.2004 and 25.9.2006 came to be passed by the Dy. Collector and the learned Tribunal in respect of the proceedings under section 17(B) of the Act. 10. As mentioned earlier, all orders are against the petitioners and in each of the orders, findings of fact have been recorded against the petitioners. 11. At the time of hearing of present petition, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to make out any ground against the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and/or by Dy. Collector. 12. Even otherwise, in present proceedings which arise from the order passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court would not enter into process of re-appreciation of evidence. Besides this, at different stages, the Dy. Collector and the learned Tribunal have verified, scrutinized, appreciated and evaluated the evidence available on record and reached to the findings of fact which have been recorded by the said authority and the revisional authority in their respective orders. As mentioned above, at the time of hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to assail the said findings of fact and any material from record of present petition, which would convince this Court that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal or even by the Dy. Collector are contrary to evidence on record or arbitrary or perverse, is not shown to this Court. 13. Under the circumstances, there is no reason or justification to interfere with such concurrent orders wherein findings of fact at all stages are recorded against the petitioners. Consequently, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected. 14. Therefore, following order is passed:- Since the petitioners have failed to make out any ground against the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal and the concerned authorities and since it is found that the orders do not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction or any error of fact, any ground to interfere with the orders is not made out. The petition fails and deserves to be rejected. Therefore, the petition is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Petition Dismissed