ORDER : 1. By way of this petition the present petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the petition; AND B.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd.03.06.2017 passed by the Ld.Member G.R.T., in relation to the agricultural land of S.no. 1159 (New S. No.1252) situated Mouje/Village: Vanch, Ta.Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad; AND C.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the impugned order dtd.03.06.2017 passed by the Ld.Member, G.R.T., in relation to the land of S.no. 1159 (New S. No.1252) situated Mouje / Village: Vanch, Ta.Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad during the pendency and final disposal of this petition; AND D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Sub-Para (C) pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition; AND E.YOUR LORDSHIPS may be please to pass such other and further orders may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the agricultural lands of survey no. 1159 (New Survey No.1252) situated Mouje / Village: Vanch, Ta.Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad were running in the name of Bhalabhai Mathurbhai in the capacity of administrator of Ramji Mandir and name of the petitioner was appearing in the capacity of tenant in relation to land of survey no.1159 (New Survey No.1252). 2.2 In the year 1994, one Chimanbhai Chhababhai made an application to the Mamlatdar & ALT and prayed for deletion of word ‘in the capacity of administrator of Ramji Mandir’ from the revenue entries. In those proceedings, the petitioner was also one of the parties. It is stated in the petition in para:B on page:5 of the petition that in the year 1962 all the cases of tenants were disposed of and, therefore, their names were removed from the record of rights. In those proceedings, the petitioner was also one of the parties. It is stated in the petition in para:B on page:5 of the petition that in the year 1962 all the cases of tenants were disposed of and, therefore, their names were removed from the record of rights. 2.3 Pursuant to above referred application before the Mamlatdar & ALT, case was registered as Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994 and on the basis of erstwhile tenants of the land in question, who in the year 1994 were also not tenants of the land in question, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed an order dated 15.05.1995 holding that in view of statement of the witnesses, the name of Chimanbhai Chhababhai be entered in the revenue record as occupier and the word ‘as administrator of Ramji Temple’ be removed from the revenue record. 2.4 The aforesaid order dated 15.05.1995 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994 was taken into suo motu revision before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals), Ahmedabad vide Tenancy Case No.557 of 2003 and vide order dated 18.11.2014, the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals), Ahmedabad quashed the order dated 15.05.1995 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT in Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994 and direct to mention the word ‘ in capacity of administrator of Ramji Temple’ in the revenue record. Thereafter aforesaid order was challenged before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by one Savitaben Wd/o. Kantibhai Bhalabhai and Madhubhai Laljibhai Patel and in that Revision Application petitioner was not joined as party respondent. The Revision Application was numbered as TEN / BA/ 17 of 2015 and ultimately vide order dated 03.06.2017 said Revision Application was allowed by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal qua the applicants of that Revision Application only in respect of Survey No.1168, 1169 and 1159. The said Revision Application was allowed on the ground that Deputy Collector has exercised powers conferred under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act beyond the period of one year. Since according to the petitioner as the petitioner was not joined as party respondent in the aforesaid Revision Application and by allowing aforesaid Revision Application, the revisionists of that Revision Application were held to be occupier of the survey numbers mentioned in the order, the petitioner interest would directly get affected, the petitioner preferred the present petition. 3. Since according to the petitioner as the petitioner was not joined as party respondent in the aforesaid Revision Application and by allowing aforesaid Revision Application, the revisionists of that Revision Application were held to be occupier of the survey numbers mentioned in the order, the petitioner interest would directly get affected, the petitioner preferred the present petition. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Shivam Dixit for the respondent – State Authority. 4. On 22.11.2021, this Court had passed the following order. “Learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi for the petitioners requests for time to file additional affidavit explaining the locus of the petitioner as the record indicates that petitioner was neither owner of the land in question nor at any point of time as per record he has claimed tenancy right over the land in question. Mr.Gandhi wants to file additional affidavit. Hence, upon his request stand over to 06.12.2021.” 5. Thereafter on 06.12.2021 following order was passed. “Upon request made by the learned advocate Ms.Devangi Solanki on behalf of the learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi for the petitioners, as a last chance, stand over to 16.12.2021, irrespective of whether the petitioner file any additional affidavit or not, the matter be heard on 16.12.2021.” 6. Today when the matter was called out, learned advocate Mr.Gandhi has not filed any affidavit, however, from the record he tried to establish that present petitioner was tenant and was having some interest in the land in question being survey no. 1159 (New Survey No.1252) situated Mouje / Village: Vanch, Ta.Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad. 7.1 Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi draws attention of this Court to the order dated 15.05.1995 wherein in third column at serial n.7, name of the present petitioner is shown as tenant. Thereafter Mr.Gandhi points out that before the Mamlatdar and ALT, the present petitioner was party. Even before the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Case No.557 of 2003 also present petitioner was party and he was not joined as party before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Thereafter Mr.Gandhi points out that before the Mamlatdar and ALT, the present petitioner was party. Even before the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Case No.557 of 2003 also present petitioner was party and he was not joined as party before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 8.1 Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi was right in canvassing that the present petitioner was party in those proceedings, however, on perusal of record in the order passed by the Mamlatdar, it is categorically stated that the respondents were tenant of the land in question and their tenancy rights were decided in the Tenancy Cases which took place in the year 1962 and accordingly their tenancy rights have come to an end. The controversy before the Mamlatdar & ALT was with regard to deletion of names of Chimanbhai Chhababhai as ‘administrator of Ramji Mandir Trust’ as he was claiming the land to be of his ownership and, therefore, that application was in respect of deleting the word ‘as administrator of Ramji Temple Trust’ and, therefore, in support of claim Chimanbhai Chhababhai and those persons who were tenants of the land in question, were joined as party respondent and their statements were recorded. 8.2 From the record, it seems that even the petitioner’s statement was also recorded as Ex-tenant only, as there was reference in respect of other persons who have deposed in favour of Chimanbhai Chhababhai that the land in question was in possession of Chimanbhai Chhababhai only. However, today pursuant to the query of the Court, learned advocate Mr.Gandhi submits that in the year 1962, the name of the petitioner was though deleted from the record when the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals) Ahmedabad passed order dated 18.11.2014 in Revision Case No.557 of 2003, there is a reference about one Government Resolution dated 26.03.1980 which is about giving exemption to the lands hold by religious trust from the provisions of Tenancy Act and which confers right upon the tenants to purchase the land and, therefore, on the basis of aforesaid Government Resolution, the present petitioner is claiming to be tenant in respect of the land in question. 8.3 By making aforesaid submissions, Mr.Gandhi draws attention of this Court to the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN / BA / 17 of 2005 preferred by Savitaben Wd/o. Kantibhai Bhalabhai and Madhubhai Laljibhai Patel wherein the present petitioner was not joined as party respondent and ultimately the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed an order dated 03.06.2017 whereby the Revision Application was allowed only in respect of Survey Nos.1168, 1169 and 1159 claimed to have been held by the applicant of that Revision Application. Mr.Gandhi submitted that the Court allowed the Revision Application on the ground of exercising powers conferred to the Deputy Collector beyond the period of one year as per Section 76A of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, prays that in view of fact that such powers are exercised in favour of applicant of that application, who are joined as respondent nos.5 and 6 in this petition, the order is bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9.1 Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Gandhi, from the record it transpires that proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Tal:Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad, which are produced at page:44 in this petition being Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994 was actually the proceedings under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act read with Section 88 of the Act whereby application was preferred by Chimanbhai Chhababhai who claimed that the land was held by him in his personal capacity and under his possession though at the relevant point of time in the Revenue Record his name was there in the capacity of ‘administrator of Ramji Mandir’ and, therefore, to delete the word ‘administrator of Ramji Mandir’ the aforesaid application was preferred. In that application, the persons who were tenants of the land in question but had lost, their tenancy rights pursuant to proceedings took place in the year 1962, were joined as party respondents and on the basis of their statement Mamlatdar and ALT passed an order in favour of Chimanbhai Chhababhai on 15.05.1995. In those proceedings, apart from other tenants, who had lost their tenancy rights in the year 1962, the petitioner also had deposed in favour of Chimanbhai Chhababhai. In those proceedings, apart from other tenants, who had lost their tenancy rights in the year 1962, the petitioner also had deposed in favour of Chimanbhai Chhababhai. However, the present petitioner had specifically not stated that he had lost his tenancy right in the year 1962 though majority of persons who were joined as respondents in those proceedings had deposed categorically that they had lost their tenancy right pursuant to the proceedings which took place in the year 1962. 9.2 Even from the record nowhere it can be found that present petitioner still enjoys the status of ‘tenant’. 9.3 When a specific query was put to learned advocate Mr.Gandhi, Mr.Gandhi submitted that the present petitioner also has lost his tenancy right pursuant to those proceedings in the year 1969 which is referred to in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994. The order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 15.05.1995 was challenged before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals) Ahmedabad by way of suo motu revision under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act and which was numbered as Tenancy Revision Case No.557 of 2003. While quashing the order dated 15.05.1995 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT in Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994, the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals) vide order dated 18.11.2014 made a reference about one Government Resolution dated 26.03.1980. It is stated in the order that it can be seen that the instructions contained in the said Government Resolution is about the fact that religious places are given exemption from the provisions of Tenancy Act was cancelled and now the Tenants are given right to purchase the land held by religious places. Though the present petitioner never challenged the order of the year 1962 proceedings which are not on record learned advocate Mr.Gandhi submitted that petitioner never challenged those proceedings but it is only on the basis of aforesaid observations made by the Deputy Collector, the petitioner claims to be tenants of the land in question. 9.4 Merely because reference is made in some proceedings wherein the petitioner is party, it will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner. 9.4 Merely because reference is made in some proceedings wherein the petitioner is party, it will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals) Ahmedabad dated 18.11.2014 in Tenancy Revision Case No.557 of 2003 was in respect of earlier revision in respect of order dated 15.05.1995 passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Tal.Daskroi, Dist.Ahmedabad in Tenancy Case No.120 of 2004 which was preferred by Chimanbhai Chhababhai for deletion of word ‘ in the capacity of administrator of Ramji Mandir’ and, therefore, as it was not in respect of petitioner’s rights, title or interest in the land in question, the petitioner cannot rely upon that observation made by making reference of Government Resolution dated 26.03.1980 and merely because that Government Resolution is there, it will not confer any right in favour of petitioner automatically and, therefore, as petitioner’s rights as tenant were put to end as far as in the year 1962, this Court holds that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order impugned in this petition. 10. As far as petitioner’s submission in respect of Revision Application preferred by Savitaben Wd/o. Kantibhai Bhalabhai and Madhubhai Laljibhai Patel revisionists of Revision Application No.TEN / BA/ 70 of 2015 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is concerned, it was alleged by the petitioner that the petitioners were not joined as party respondent in those proceedings and behind the back of the petitioner proceedings of that revision application took place. Learned Advocate Mr.Gandhi had also contended the fact that by way of revision application the order passed by the Deputy Collector in exercise of powers beyond the period of one year under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act was quashed and set aside and, therefore, by virtue of that order the revisionits of those revision application were held to be occupiers of those lands which were directed affecting the rights of the petitioner and, therefore, present petition is required to be entertained and impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 11. Now as far as that submission is concerned, as stated in forgoing paras, and now once again at the cost of repetition, this Court is constrained to reiterate that before the Mamlatdar and ALT the present petitioner had categorically deposed that land in question is in possession of Chimanbhai Chhababhai. 11. Now as far as that submission is concerned, as stated in forgoing paras, and now once again at the cost of repetition, this Court is constrained to reiterate that before the Mamlatdar and ALT the present petitioner had categorically deposed that land in question is in possession of Chimanbhai Chhababhai. He is neither occupier of the land nor in possession of the land. It was also categorically stated that in the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 15.05.1995 in Tenancy Case No.120 of 1994 that the petitioners and persons who had lost their tenancy rights had given deposition in favour of Chimanbhai Chhababhai. Now considering the fact that learned Advocate Mr.Gandhi also had admitted the fact that even the petitioner also lost his rights as tenant in the year 1962 coupled with the admission of the petitioner before the Mamlatdar and ALT that he is not in possession of the land today, and as such since petitioner is neither tenant, nor owner of the land or occupier of the land, if by way of revision application preferred by some other persons petition is not joined and any order is passed right of the petitioner will not be affected by that order as it is already held that petitioner has no locus in respect of the land in question and, therefore, whether the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms and Appeals) dated 18.11.2014 is quashed or not will not make any difference in respect of present case as even if impugned orders are quashed it will not confer any right in favour of petitioner as petitioner has no locus in respect of the land in question. 12. In view of the above discussion, present petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.