### Restoration application under Section 32-O cannot be converted into purchase price proceedings under Section 32-G.

In 1975, the respondents filed an application under Section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, alleging they were dispossessed and seeking restoration of possession.

The respondents relied on a 1957-58 revenue entry where the name of Shankarbhai Joitaram Patel was handwritten over the original owner's name, Maganlal, for only one year.

In 1985, the Mamlatdar & ALT found no evidence of tenancy or dispossession, noting the respondents never claimed this land while asserting rights for contiguous plots.

However, the Deputy Collector in 1991 declared the respondents as tenants, viewing them as "hidden tenants".

The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) and the learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld this declaration.

Under Section 32, a tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on "tillers' day" (01.04.1957) if they were personally cultivating it.

Section 32-G mandates the Tribunal to determine the purchase price for such deemed purchasers.

Section 32-O (prior to its deletion) applied specifically to tenancies created after the tillers' day.

Section 29 governs the procedure for a tenant to take possession within a prescribed limitation period.

The Court held that the fundamental nature of the respondents' 1975 application precluded the relief granted. Since the application was filed under Section 32-O, it presupposed a tenancy created after April 1, 1957; therefore, the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by converting it into a Section 32-G proceeding, which only applies to tenancies existing on the tillers' day.

The Court scrutinized the evidence, noting that the 1957-58 entry was a solitary interpolation bracketed by the Talati upon spot verification.

Furthermore, the respondents failed to explain an 18-year delay (1957 to 1975) in asserting rights, especially since they were aware of the process, having claimed tenancy for adjacent Survey Nos. 523 and 525.

The Court found no proof of rent payment, crop sharing, or continuous cultivation, concluding the "hidden tenant" theory was unsustainable.

The High Court quashed the Single Judge's order dated 04.11.2025 and the preceding orders of the Deputy Collector and GRT, restoring the original order of the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 20.08.1985 which rejected the tenancy claim.