NAGINBHAI NATHUBHAI MODI ALIAS BHAGAR Vs. NAGINBHAI RANCHHODBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the group of respondents claiming their joint Hindu family being the tenant over the disputed land, death of one of its members would not have the effect of abating the appeal. Thus, we condone the delay and allow substitution of the LRs of deceased Respondent 1. The LRs have already engaged their lawyer and are represented by Mr. Vimal Dave.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High court, whereby remand has been effected to the Mamlatdar concerned for fixation of price of the disputed area; claim of the tenant being accepted thereto in proceedings relevant to the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) as applicable to the State of Gujarat.

(3.) The broad facts giving rise to this litigation are these: Survey Nos. 245 and 246/2 in Village Dumas were owned by the appellant-landowner. The respondents (which expression includes their successors-in-interest) claimed to be the tenants thereon. So far as Survey No. 245 is concerned, there is no dispute that it was cultivated and that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Staking claim under Section 32 of the Act, the tenants asserted that they were tenants over both the survey numbers on the tillers' day even though Survey No. 246 was uncultivated. Apparently, a collusive order was obtained by the parties from the Mamlatdar insofar as Survey No. 246/2 was concerned, as otherwise the claim was valid with regard to Survey No. 245. A part of the area thereof was conceded in favour of the tenants and the other part was retained by the landowners. Years went by. The tenants attempted to commit trespass over the left-out area at a point of time. The appellant thus had to resort to a suit. Then the tenants woke up and made an application under Section 70 (b) of the Act, claiming that the landowners had wrongfully retained a portion ofsurvey No. 246/2 when concededly they were the tenants over the area. Their claim was negatived by the Mamlatdar. It is to note that the earlier proceedings before the Mamlatdar under Section 32 of the Act were collusive and the status conferred on the tenants qua part of Survey Nos. 245 and 246/2 was by itself shaky. Their appeal thus failed before the Collector and so did their revision before the Gujarat Revenue tribunal. This led them to the High court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High court interfered and granted them the status of being tenants over the disputed area on the tillers' day, resulting in an order of remand for fixation of price. This has given rise to the appeal.