JUDGMENT : Nirzar S. Desai, J. 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jay Trivedi as well as learned advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respective respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN/BA/819/1996 qua the observations declaring the respondent No.4 as tenant of the land in question and have further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.7.1996 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in Tenancy Appeal No.636 of 1994 as well as the order dated 7.9.1994 passed by the Mamlatdar, Nadiad in Tenancy Case No.190 of 1994 qua the observations holding that there are breach of conditions of provisions of Section 32P(7)(8) of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'). The petitioners have further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. 3. With the consent of parties, the matter was heard finally on 29.11.2023. Thereafter, due to paucity of time, the judgment could not be dictated and the matter was adjourned to 30.11.2023 and thereafter to today i.e. 4.12.2023. When the matter was heard, submissions made by learned advocates were considered. However, at the time of dictating the judgment, the Court found some factual discrepancies in the pleadings and hence, learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing for the petitioner has submitted brief synopsis stating correct facts of the case today and hence, the same is taken on record. 4. Rule. Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respective respondents. 5. The factual matrix of the petition are stated as under :- 5.1 The dispute raised by this petition is in respect of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.1181 admeasuring Acres 2 - 12 Are at village Lakhavadpati, Tal. Nadiad, Dist. Kheda. According to the petitioners, one Shivabhai Lakhabhai was the original landlord of the land in question and one Ranchhod Chotabhai was tenant who was protected tenant as his name was entered into the revenue record vide Entry No.1238 mutated in March 1949. Nadiad, Dist. Kheda. According to the petitioners, one Shivabhai Lakhabhai was the original landlord of the land in question and one Ranchhod Chotabhai was tenant who was protected tenant as his name was entered into the revenue record vide Entry No.1238 mutated in March 1949. 5.2 As the tenant Ranchhod Chotabhai was not willing to purchase the land in question, the purchase of land in question in favour of the tenant was held to be ineffective vide order dated 23.7.1966 for which Entry No.2646 dated 23.7.1966 was mutated. 5.3 In the year 1967, as the purchaser did not purchase the land and the purchase came to be held ineffective by way of Ganot Case No.666, the Mamlatdar & ALT vide order dated 24.4.1967 terminated the rights of the tenant Ranchhod Chotabhai and the land was granted to original owner i.e. father of the present petitioner by passing order as per the precedence under Section 32P(7)(8) of the Tenancy Act and the aforesaid sale was reflected vide Entry No.2937 dated 24.4.1967 in the revenue records. 5.4 According to the petitioners, order dated 24.4.1967 is never challenged at any point of time by any person. 5.5 In the year 1974, original tenant preferred application under Section 32(p)(7)(8) read with Section 84-C before the Mamlatdar & ALT on the ground that the landlord has transferred the land in question in favour of respondent No.4 - Motibhai Allubhai Parmar and, therefore, the same amounts to breach of condition of allotment. In the aforesaid proceedings, father of the respondent No.4 i.e. Motibhai Allubhai Parmar took a stand that he purchased the land from the ancestors of the petitioners and he is cultivating the land since last many years and, therefore, he should be declared as tenant. 5.6 By order dated 15.4.1974, by relying upon the statements of the original landlord, protected tenant Ranchhodbhai Chhotabhai and the person in possession of the land in question and claiming to have purchased the land from Ranchhodbhai Chhotabhai Patel, Motibhai Allubhai Parmar, the Mamlatdar & ALT rejected the application preferred by the tenant i.e. Ranchhodbhai Chhotabhai Patel and declared Motibhai Allubhai Parmar as tenant ever since the date he was allegedly cultivating the land even before 1960 - 61. 5.7 The order dated 15.4.1974 passed by Mamlatdar & ALT, Nadiad was never challenged by any party. The said order has not been challenged for about 20 years. 5.7 The order dated 15.4.1974 passed by Mamlatdar & ALT, Nadiad was never challenged by any party. The said order has not been challenged for about 20 years. It is only in the year 1994, Motibhai Allubhai Parmar - respondent No.4 filed an application being Ganot Case No.190 of 1994 preferred under Section 32G for determination of purchase rights of the land in question. 5.8 By order dated 7.9.1994, the aforesaid proceedings were dropped and Mamlatdar & ALT directed that the action under Section 32(p)(7)(8) read with Section 84-C of the Tenancy Act for breach of condition be initiated against the landlord and transferred the land in question to respondent No.4 considering the fact that the landlord - present petitioner had transferred the land in favour of respondent No.4. 5.9 The respondent No.4 challenged the aforesaid order dated 7.9.1994 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Kheda by Tenancy Appeal No.636 of 1994. However, the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 30.7.1996. 5.10 Being further aggrieved with the said orders, the srespondent No.4 preferred Revision Application No.BEN/TA/819/1996 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 4.9.2015 allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside the orders dated 30.7.1996 and 7.9.1994 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) and Mamlatdar & ALT respectively. 5.11 After the order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the Mamlatdar & ALT fixed the purchase price of the land in question vide order dated 26.11.2015 and, therefore, the said order is also under challenge by way of this petition. 5.12 Hence the present petition. 6. Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, made following submissions :- (i) That the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal whereby he quashed the order passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar & ALT is bad as the Tribunal has committed an error by taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.4 - Motibhai Parmar was cultivating the land at the relevant point of time and as per the revenue record, the said Motibhai Parmar is cultivating the land at present as well. The aforesaid finding is without jurisdiction. The aforesaid finding is without jurisdiction. (ii) That though the land was offered to the original tenant Ranchhod Chotabhai, as he has shown his inability to purchase the land, therefore, the sale in his favour became ineffective and, thereafter, after following the procedure as prescribed under Section 32(p)(7)(8) of the Tenancy Act, the land was vested in the present petitioner. (iii) That so long as the aforesaid order in as much as the status of the petitioner remains as the owner of the land and in absence of there being any separate independent proceedings for determination of tenancy rights of respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 cannot be conferred with tenancy right on the basis of order which was passed without jurisdiction in the year 1974. (iv) That the proceedings undertaken in the year 1974 which is heavily relied upon by respondent No.4 and are also weighed with the revisional authority are the proceedings initiated at the behest of original protected tenant Ranchhod Chotabhai for initiation of proceedings under Section 84-C for breach of conditions. By way of that application, the protected tenant was seeking some penal action against the petitioner. However, in any case, either that application could have been allowed or could have been rejected, but in that application, the tenancy right of respondent No.4 ought not to have been determined and therefore now, the respondent No.4 who has preferred the revision application No.819 of 1996 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal seeking protection of his tenancy rights and, therefore, if the rights are given in a wrong proceedings, the Tribunal was not justified in quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar & ALT whereby both the revenue authorities held in favour of the petitioner and the Tribunal by relying upon the said proceedings which were without jurisdiction and the proceedings were not meant for determining the tenancy rights, passed an order in favour of respondent No.4 which is contrary to law and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Tattvam K. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar & ALT. 7. Mr. Tattvam K. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and Mamlatdar & ALT. He pointed out that the respondent No.4 was cultivating the land since 1961 and the land was purchased by him by paying the purchase price of Rs.4,000/- to the original owner i.e. present petitioner. He further submitted that pursuant to an application made by Ranchhod Chotabhai Patel, the protected tenant for initiation of proceedings for breach of condition under Section 84-C, an inquiry was conducted and the parties were examined and their statements were recorded. In those proceedings, all the three stakeholders, namely, the present petitioner who happens to be the original owner of the land i.e. landlord, protected tenant Ranchhod Chotabhai as well as respondent No.4 Motibhai A. Parmar, all three in one voice submitted before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Nadiad in Ganot Case No.155 of 1974 that the land is purchased by Motibhai Parmar from Shivabhai Lakhabhai by paying consideration of Rs.4,000/- and the land was being cultivated by the respondent No.4 since 1968. The aforesaid order, even if was passed in a proceedings initiated by Ranchhod Chotabhai Patel, the same has not been challenged till date by any of the parties and considering the fact that even today, the respondent No.4 is in possession of the land in question and is cultivating the land, equity has been created in favour of respondent No.4 and, therefore, the same may not be disturbed. He further submitted that in view of the fact that application was preferred by Ranchhod Chotabhai Patel who was the protected tenant, as he was not cultivating the land, the land was cultivated by the present respondent No.4 and it was a transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.4 whereby upon paying the consideration of Rs.4,000/-, the land was purchased by respondent No.4, at this juncture, after order holding the respondent No.4 as tenant in the year 1974, after these many years, such finding of facts cannot be disturbed on technicalities by stating that the proceedings whereby respondent No.4 was held to be tenant were not the proceedings to determine the tenancy right of a person. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon revenue record and even the Tribunal has also found that the respondent No.4 is in possession of the land in question and is cultivating the land. By making the aforeasid submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that in the year 1974 in Tenancy Case No.155 of 1974, proceedings were initiated at the behest of Ranchhod Chotabhai Patel - protected tenant and all the three parties to the proceedings i.e. landlord Shivabhai Patel - father of the petitioner, protected tenant Ranchhod C. Patel as well as Motibhai A. Parmar - respondent No.4 who was the one who was cultivating the land upon purchase of the land from the petitioner, in one voice, admitted before the Mamlatdar & ALT, Nadiad that land was purchased by respondent No.4 upon payment of consideration of Rs.4,000/- to the father of the present petitioner and since 1968, he is in possession and cultivating the land in question. Since the aforesaid findings were considered by the Mamlatdar & ALT and respondent No.4 was declared to be tenant in respect of the land in question, as the aforesaid declaration is based upon the admission of petitioner himself at the relevant point of time, even if the proceedings were not meant to determine the tenancy rights between the parties, the petitioner would be bound by his own admission. Further, the fact remains that even if it is presumed that the order dated 15.4.1974 whereby respondent No.4 was declared to be a tenant in proceedings which was not meant for declaration of a person as the fact remains that the said order has never been challenged till date by any of the parties. In the meantime, respondent No.4 continued to cultivate the land and in fact, preferred an application in the year 1974 to determine the price of the land by making an application under Section 32G. In the meantime, respondent No.4 continued to cultivate the land and in fact, preferred an application in the year 1974 to determine the price of the land by making an application under Section 32G. Those applications were rejected by the Mamlatdar & ALT and Deputy Collector on the premise that by ignoring the order dated 15.4.1974 and also ignoring the fact that right from 1968, it was respondent No.4 who was in possession of the land and cultivate the land and the order dated 15.4.1974 was never challenged by any of the parties. Therefore, the aforesaid fact has rightly been considered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal as the Tribunal upon inquiry and perusing the revenue record found that the respondent No.4 was cultivated the land even at the relevant point of time as well as when the revision application was decided and rightly quashed and set aside the order dated 30.7.1996 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in Tenancy Appeal No.636 of 1994 as well as the order dated 7.9.1994 passed by the Mamlatdar, Nadiad in Tenancy Case No.190 of 1994. 9. I am of the view that over the period of time, right from 1968, as the respondent No.4 has continued to cultivate the land and he has purchased the land in the year 1968 by paying consideration to the petitioner, at this juncture, after these many years, it is not open for the petitioner to claim right over the land in question by citing an order of the year 1966 whereby pursuant to the proceedings under Section 32(p)(7)(8), the land was once again given back to the petitioner as the record indicates and as per the admission of the petitioner himself, once the land was restored in favour of the petitioner in respect of the proceedings under Section 32(p)(7)(8), thereafter the petitioner received the consideration of Rs.4,000/- from the respondent No.4 and gave the land for cultivation and sold the land to respondent No.4 for cultivation and sold the land to respondent No.4 and since then the respondent No.4 is not just an owner of the land but is cultivating the land regularly. In view of the admission of the petitioner himself in proceedings being Tenancy Case No.155 of 1974 wherein he has admitted the aforesaid aspect, the petitioner is bound by his own admission. 10. In view of the admission of the petitioner himself in proceedings being Tenancy Case No.155 of 1974 wherein he has admitted the aforesaid aspect, the petitioner is bound by his own admission. 10. In view of considering the admission of the petitioner as well as considering the fact that Tenancy Act is a benevolent legislation meant for protecting the rights of the tenants and the respondent No.4 is coming from the lower strata of society and considering the findings recorded by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.