ORDER : 1. This group of petitions are arising out of the revenue proceedings in connection with various sale-deeds at different point of time between the parties to the petition in connection with the land bearing Survey Nos./Block Nos.500, 497, 502/2, 502/1 and 501 of Village-Sama, Taluka & District Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject land’). 2. In this group of petitions, the petitioners as well as the private respondents claim some interest in the aforesaid subject land and therefore, they have been litigating against each other at various forums. It is submitted on behalf of the learned senior advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the issues raised and the facts of the cases, that all the petitions be taken up for joint hearing and disposal. 3. The petitions are in three sets; the first set of petitions being the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, the second set of petitions is pertaining to the proceedings under the Land Revenue Code and the third set of petitions is by the interested party but against the very order, which is the subject matter of challenge. 4. The facts are being recorded from the lead matters being Special Civil Application No.8795 of 2022, Special Civil Application No.8895 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No.12991 of 2022. 5. The Special Civil Application No.8795 of 2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following prayers : “(a) admit and allow present petition; (b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Mamlatdar & Agricultural Land Tribunal, Vadodara City (north) in Tenancy Case No.5/20; (c) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, stay implementation and execution of order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Mamlatdar & Agricultural Land Tribunal, Vadodara City (north) in Tenancy Case No.5/20;” 6. The Special Civil Application No.8895 of 2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following prayers : “(a) admit and allow present petition; (b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Circle Officer, Vadodara City (North) and consequently order cancellation of entry no.11297; (c) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, stay implementation and execution of order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Circle Officer, Vadodara City (North) and further order restoration of name of present petitioner in revenue record of land in question;” 7. The Special Civil Application No.12991 of 2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following prayers : “(a) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow present petition; (b) Your Lordships be pleased issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Mamlatdar & Agricultural Land Tribunal, Vadodara city (north) in Tenancy Case No.9/20; (c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, stay implementation and execution of order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Mamlatdar & Agricultural Land Tribunal, Vadodara city (north) in Tenancy Case No.9/20; (d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant status-quo of the revenue records qua survey no.502/2 of Village-Sama, District: Vadodara.” 8. Therefore, the Special Civil Application No.8795 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No.12991 of 2022 are filed against the very order, whereas the Special Civil Application No.8895 of 2022 is filed against the order of the Circle Officer, Vadodara City (North), which is consequential order to the tenancy proceedings. Different petitions are filed because of various parcels of the land but the issues raised are the same in all the petitions. 9. Different petitions are filed because of various parcels of the land but the issues raised are the same in all the petitions. 9. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner, by referring to the chronology of litigation filed from time to time in connection with the very subject land, has submitted that lastly the matter even had reached before the Apex Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.5487 of 2019, 6041 of 2019, 5893 of 2019, 6042 of 2019 and 5908 of 2019, which came to be disposed of by order dated 05-03-2019, whereby the Apex Court, on the issue of not joining the petitioner in the tenancy proceedings, gave an opportunity to him, whereas the Court in the order dated 27-06-2017 passed in the Special Civil Application Nos.11896 to 11900 of 2017, had issued categoric directions in Para-7 of the order, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench and also by the Apex Court. Therefore, the petitioner now had the right to implead in the tenancy cases. 10. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid, the Deputy Collector has not joined the petitioner as party to the proceedings and passed orders setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 19-09-2016. Based on the order by the Collector, a notice came to be issued by the Mamlatdar & ALT. However, the petitioner was not joined as party there and hence, applied for impleading as party opponent in the proceedings before the Mamlatdar & ALT. However, the Mamlatdar & ALT did not decide the application. Hence, another application was filed before the Mamlatdar & ALT, which the Mamlatdar & ALT refused to accept, because of which, the petitioner had filed another set of petitions being Special Civil Application No.20090 of 2021 with Special Civil Application Nos.20131 to 20134 of 2021. These petitions came to be disposed of by order dated 04-01-2022 ultimately directing the Mamlatdar & ALT to take decision on the application made by the petitioner for being impleaded as party. 11. These petitions came to be disposed of by order dated 04-01-2022 ultimately directing the Mamlatdar & ALT to take decision on the application made by the petitioner for being impleaded as party. 11. It is submitted that in defiance of the order passed by this Court and without joining the petitioner as party, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed the order dated 21-01-2022, against which the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.3540 of 2022 with Special Civil Application No.3473 of 2022 with Special Civil Application No.3510 of 2022 with Special Civil Application No.3736 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No.3719 of 2022. Pending such petitions, the Mamlatdar & ALT passed an order dated 28-03-2022 joining the petitioner as the party-respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application before the Mamlatdar & ALT to sine die adjourn the tenancy proceeding, in view of the fact that the basic order of the Deputy Collector was challenged by the petitioner before the G.R.T. and was pending. However, without deciding the application, the Mamlatdar & ALT proceeded to pass final order dated 13-04-2022, which is impugned before this Court. 12. It is submitted that originally when the Mamlatdar & ALT had passed the order on 21.01.2022, entries nos.11297 to 11301 were posted recording the said order. Thereafter, due to notices issued by this Hon’ble Court in the above stated Special Civil Application, the Mamlatdar & ALT conducted tenancy cases all again and passed the impugned order. Hence, when the Mamlatdar & ALT conducted the proceedings again, the order dated 21.01.2022 become infractuous and of no consequence, whatsoever. Hence, the entries nos.11297 to 11301 were required to be rejected/cancelled when the order dated 21.01.2022 did not hold the field. Even otherwise, the present petitioner had immediately raised objection against the certification of the said entries. When an objection is raised against certification of any entry, the dispute case is required to be registered and opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded by the revenue officer. In the present case, no such procedure is followed by the revenue authority, and on 16.04.22 the Circle Officer, Vadodara, certified those entries and removed the name of present petitioner from the revenue record and mutated the name of the original land owner as if the land is restored to the original owner. In the present case, no such procedure is followed by the revenue authority, and on 16.04.22 the Circle Officer, Vadodara, certified those entries and removed the name of present petitioner from the revenue record and mutated the name of the original land owner as if the land is restored to the original owner. It is interesting to note here that though an identical order is passed for all the lands and an identical entry is posted for land bearing Survey No.501, the State of Gujarat is mutated in the Village Form no.7 whereas, for other lands, the name of original owner is mutated. This shows the complete arbitrary action. 13. It is submitted that with a clear intention of helping the original owner who sold away the land twice, the Mamlatdar & ALT has passed the impugned order. Under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, if the Mamlatdar & ALT comes to the conclusion that any transaction is in breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, he has to order vesting of land in the State Government. As far as restoration is concerned, the said option can be given only if the parties to the transaction agree for the same in writing. In other words, restoration is at the behest of the buyer and seller has nothing to do with. In the present case, completely in contravention with the provisions of the Act, the Mamlatdar & ALT has passed the order restoring the land to the original owner. 14. It is submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist by birth and is holding an agricultural land. However, as the Mamlatdar & ALT was biased against the petitioner, on his own, called for the report from the Mamlatdar, Godhra, in connection with the status as regards agriculturist, and behind back, such report has been relied upon to decide against the interest of the petitioner and therefore, there is breach of principles of natural justice affecting the rights of the petitioner in the subject land. 15. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is holding an agricultural land at Village-Navanagar, Dehgam, District Gandhinagar. Despite this, the entire proceedings are taken against the petitioner as if he is a non-agriculturist. 16. 15. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is holding an agricultural land at Village-Navanagar, Dehgam, District Gandhinagar. Despite this, the entire proceedings are taken against the petitioner as if he is a non-agriculturist. 16. Learned senior advocate for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has directly challenged the order before this Court despite there being a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, and the contentions raised, which refer to various factual aspects, same are required to be undergone before the appropriate authority before whom the impugned order by the Mamlatdar & ALT is to be challenged. 17. Learned senior advocate for the respondents has elaborately made submissions on the issue of not to invoke Article-226 of the Constitution, where statutory alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. It is submitted that in fact another set of litigating parties have already approached the G.R.T. by challenging the very order and, therefore, entertaining the present petitions will only lead to multiplicity of litigation. He has also referred to the Special Civil Application No.12991 of 2022 and submitted that the petitioners of the aforesaid petition are already before the G.R.T. challenging the very order but have also preferred the petition before this Court only because the present petitions are filed. 18. In rejoinder, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-original land owner, after having pocketed the sale consideration for the land in question, is deliberately litigating with malafide intention and all his rights in connection with the subject land would stand extinguished the moment he received the sale consideration. Thereafter, all these proceedings are only with a view to satisfy his grid by arm-twisting the subsequent purchaser. 19. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears at the outset that the Court finds several rounds of litigation in the form of tenancy proceedings. The Court may refer to the chronology of transactions and litigation in brief as under : 20. It appears that in the first round of litigation, on 14.07.1994, Order passed in the Tenancy Case Nos. 5236/83 to 5240/83 whereby the Mamlatdar & A.L.T cancelled the sale deed of Suraj Bhagat on the ground of barred under the Tenancy Act. On 07-06-2000, Tenancy Appeals Nos. It appears that in the first round of litigation, on 14.07.1994, Order passed in the Tenancy Case Nos. 5236/83 to 5240/83 whereby the Mamlatdar & A.L.T cancelled the sale deed of Suraj Bhagat on the ground of barred under the Tenancy Act. On 07-06-2000, Tenancy Appeals Nos. 45/2000 to 49/2000 filed by Suraj Bhagat challenging the order passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. On 20-08-2001, Orders passed in Tenancy Appeals Nos. 45/2000 to 49/2000, whereby Appeals came to be allowed & the Deputy Collector (L.R.) remanded the matter to Mamlatdar & A.L.T. In the years 2001 and 2002, Remand Cases Nos.76/2001, 77/2002, 78/2001, 8/2002, 9/2002 registered before the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. pursuant to order dated 20.08.2001. 21. It appears that in the second round of litigation, on 18-12-2003, Orders in Remand Cases Nos.76/2001, 77/2002, 78/2001, 8/2002, 9/2002 whereby the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. validated the sale deed of Dhiru Jetha & invalidated the sale deed of Surajprakash Bhagat. In the year 2004, Tenancy Appeals Nos. 06/2004 to 10/2004 preferred by Suraj Bhagat before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) challenging the order dated 18.12.2003 passed in the Remand Case. On 31.01.2006, Orders in the Tenancy Appeals Nos. 06/2004 to 10/2004 whereby the Appeals came to be partly allowed and the matters were remanded to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. In the year 2006, the Revision Applications Nos. 84/2006 to 88/2006 preferred by Suraj Prakash Bhagat before the G.R.T, challenging the order dated 31.01.2006 passed in the Tenancy Appeals Nos. 6/2004 to 10/2004. On 20-03-2013, Orders in the Revision Applications Nos. 84/2006 to 88/2006 whereby the G.R.T. quashed the order passed by the Deputy Collector and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector. In the year 2013, the Tenancy Appeals Nos. 97/13 to 100/13 registered before the Deputy Collector (L.R.) pursuant to the remand order made by the G.R.T on 20.03.2013. In the year 2013, the SCAs Nos.7477/13 to 7480/2013 filed before the Gujarat High Court by Suraj Prakash Bhagat against the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the G.R.T. On 16.07.2015, the order in SCAs Nos. 7477/13 to 7480/2013, whereby this Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. with a direction to decide the locus of the subsequent purchaser i.e. Dhirubhai Jethahai Patel. 22. It appears that in the third round of litigation, in the year 2016, the Remand Cases Nos. 7477/13 to 7480/2013, whereby this Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. with a direction to decide the locus of the subsequent purchaser i.e. Dhirubhai Jethahai Patel. 22. It appears that in the third round of litigation, in the year 2016, the Remand Cases Nos. 16/2016 to 20/2016, registered before the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. pursuant to the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by this Court in the writ petitions. On 19.09.2016, the orders in the Remand Cases Nos.16/2016 to 20/2016, whereby the Mamlatdar & A.L.T validated the sale in favour of Surajprakash Bhagat. 23. It appears that in the forth round of litigation, on 01.04.2017, the Deputy Collector (L.R.) issued notices U/s. 76A to examine the transaction between the original owner and Dhiru Jetha as well for the transaction between the original owner and Suraj Prakash Bhagat. In the year 2017, SCAs Nos.11896/2017 to 11900/2017 preferred before this Court challenging the notices issued by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) by the petitioner. On 27.06.2017, the common order passed in the SCAs Nos.11896/2017 to 11900/2017, whereby the Single Judge of this Court disposed of the petitions with a direction to join the present petitioner as party to the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Collector (L.R). On 12.03.2020, the order passed in the Tenancy Revision Cases Nos. 23/2017 by the Deputy Collector (L.R) without joining the present petitioner as party to the proceedings in context of the show-cause notice dated 01.04.2017, passed the order whereby the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T in the Remand Cases Nos.16/2016 to 20/2016 is set aside and the matter is again remanded back to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. In the year 2020, the revision applications before the G.R.T. were preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in the Tenancy Revision Cases Nos. 20/2017. These revision applications are pending as on date for adjudication. (TEN/BA/ 7/22 to 11/22). 24. It appears that in the fifth round of litigation, in the year 2020, the Tenancy Case No. 5/2020 registered pursuant to the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), the Mamlatdar & A.L.T issued notices. The present petitioner was not joined as party in the said proceeding in all the five cases (Tenancy Cases Nos. 5/2020 to 9/2020). The present petitioner was not joined as party in the said proceeding in all the five cases (Tenancy Cases Nos. 5/2020 to 9/2020). On 08.07.2020, the petitioner had made application for joining party but the same was neither allowed nor rejected. On 17.11.2021, another application was filed by petitioner seeking impleadment but it was not accepted by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T and, therefore, the same was sent by RPAD. In the year 2021, the SCA No.20090/21 and SCA Nos.20131/21 to 20134/21 were preferred before this Court by the petitioner seeking impleadment as party to the proceeding before Mamlatdar & A.L.T. On 04.01.2022, a common order was passed in the SCA No.20090/21 and SCA Nos.20131/21 to 20134/21, whereby the petitions came to be disposed of with a direction to the Mamlatdar & A.L.T to decide the applications dated 08.07.2020 and 17.11.2021 for impleadment in accordance with law and till the same is decided, the Mamlatdar & A.L.T is directed not to pass any final order in all the Tenancy Cases. On 21.02.2022, the Final Order came to be passed in the Tenancy Cases Nos.05/2020 to 09/2020 by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. The said order is passed without joining the petitioner herein as party to the proceeding and without giving any opportunity of hearing. Vide this order, the subject land is ordered to be restored to its original vendor and, on failing to do so, it will be vested to the State Government. On 11.02.2022, the SCA No.3540/2022, SCA No.3473/2022, SCA No.3510/2022, SCA No.3762/2022 and SCA No.3719/2022 preferred before this Court by the petitioner raising the grievance that despite the order passed by this Court, he was not joined as party and the final order is passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. On 28.03.2022, order was passed in the Tenancy Cases Nos. 5 to 9/2020 whereby the Mamlatdar & ALT joined the petitioner as party. On 29.03.2022, a common order was passed in the SCA No.3340 2022, SCA No.3473/2022, SCA No.3830/2022, SCA No. 3762/2022 and SCA No.3719/2022, wherein the learned Government Pleader made a statement and produced an order dated 28.03.2022 passed in the Tenancy Case No.05/2020, whereby the petitioner is joined as party to the proceedings in the Tenancy Cases before the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. Eventually, the petitions came to be disposed of as withdrawn. On 13.04.2022, a revised final order was passed in the Tenancy Cases Nos. On 13.04.2022, a revised final order was passed in the Tenancy Cases Nos. 5/2020 to 09/2020, whereby the subject land is ordered to be restored to the original vendor. It was also observed that if the subject land is not restored, then it will be vested into the State Government. Dhiru Jetha Patel filed the Tenancy Appeals Nos. 40-44/2022 against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. On 03.11.2022, an order came to be passed by the Deputy Collector in the Tenancy Appeals Nos. 40-44/2022 rejecting the said appeals. The Deputy Collector held that the original landowner could not have sold the land to Dhiru Jetha Patel as the land could not have been restored in absence of a written consent by the purchaser (Suraj Prakash Bhagat). 25. From the aforesaid chronology, it is clear that a revision application being TEN/BA/Revision Application No.8 of 2022 by the petitioner filed against the order of the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in the Tenancy Revision Case No.20/2017 is pending before the G.R.T. In connection with the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara, the petitioners of the Special Civil Application No.12991 of 2022 have reportedly filed the Tenancy Appeal No.VDD/40/2022 to Tenancy Appeal No.VDD/44/2022 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) and the petitioner has also filed his reply to the said Tenancy Appeals. The Deputy Collector, by order dated 03.11.2022, has confirmed the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Vadodara, against which the petitioners of the Special Civil Application No.12991 of 2022 have already preferred revision application before the G.R.T. 26. The Court finds from the chronology of the events that, though the basic issue is pertaining to posting of entries in the revenue record from time to time in connection with several parcels of land, the issue has gained complication on account of successive and consecutive sale-deeds entered into between the parties, thereby creating several rights of parties in the subject land. 27. The chronology would also indicate that various cases have been instituted by all the parties concerned before various forums at different stages and at different time. Therefore, to avoid any further complication and to rule out multiplicity of litigation, it would be desirable to bring the issues to common forum which, each one of the petitioners have already resorted to. 28. Therefore, to avoid any further complication and to rule out multiplicity of litigation, it would be desirable to bring the issues to common forum which, each one of the petitioners have already resorted to. 28. Therefore, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present group of petitions with directions that the present petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of the Deputy Collector, confirming the order of the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 13.04.2022 (impugned) before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is directed to club all such applications pertaining to the land bearing Survey Nos./Block Nos.500, 497, 502/2, 502/1 and 501 of Village-Sama, Taluka & District Vadodara along with the revision applications of the petitioner being TEN/BA/7 to 11 of 2022 forthwith and hear the same in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 29. The Court also observes that the G.R.T. may address this litigation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today. 30. In view of the aforesaid, all the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.