NIRMALABEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 07.01.2008 in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/29/2001, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 29.08.2008 passed in Tenancy Case No.29/1998 as well as the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant dated 15.01.2001 passed in Tenancy Appeal No.71/1998.

(2.) Disputed land in question was sold in favour of respondents herein as far as back in the year 1963. Petitioners initiated proceedings challenging the aforesaid transaction by approaching the Mamlatdar & ALT after a period of 35 years i.e. in the year 1998. It was the case on behalf of the petitioners that a transaction which took place in the year 1963 was hit by Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Considering the fact that at the time when the petitioners initiated proceedings before the Mamlatdar & ALT after a period of 35 years, the land in question was already converted into N.A. And the plot was sub-plotted and it was sold in favour of 62 other persons. Only thereafter and after the Deputy Collector granted the permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and converted the land in question into non-agriculture use, the petitioners initiated proceedings which came to be dropped, which came to be confirmed by the Deputy Collector, which has been further confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when the petitioners initiated proceedings before the Mamlatdar & ALT, the land in question was already converted into N.A. and therefore, Bombay Tenancy Act would not be applicable and the proceedings initiated by the petitioners after a period of 35 years, it cannot be said that Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality in dismissing the Revision Application No.TEN/BS/29/2001 confirming the orders passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 29.08.2008 passed in Tenancy Case No.29/1998 as well as the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant dated 15.01.2001 passed in Tenancy Appeal No.71/1998. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the petition which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.