VASHRAM KALA Vs. P M SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises a question of tome importance and nicety And the question relates to the connotation of the expression agricultural purposes. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing survey No. 97 admeasuring 6 acres and 33 gunthas situated at Jamanvada in Amreli District. On 29-3-57 the petitioner filed a tenancy suit against respondent No. 4 in the Court of the Tenancy Mahalkari of Kodinar under section 70 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act praying for declaration that the fourth respondent was not the tenant of the petitioner in respect of survey No. 97. According to the petitioner the fourth respondent had unauthorisedly and illegally managed to get his own name entered in the record of rights as a tenant of the land. it was common ground before the Courts below that the land was used by respondent No. 4 for grazing his cattle. An attempt has been made before us by Mr. Shah who appears for the petitioner to show that such was not the position. We have looked at the record and must proceed on the footing that the land was being used by respondent No. 4 for grazing his cattle.

(2.) The Tenancy Mahalkari decided that respondent No. 4 was not the petitioners tenant in respect of the suit land and directed that the entry in his favour should be deleted from the village record. An appeal to the Collector by the fourth respondent was dismissed and the matter was carried in revision to the Revenue Tribunal. The revenue Tribunal has stated in its judgment that the opponent was admittedly given the land by the petitioner for one year for grazing his cattle and that created tenancy rights between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 before us. In arriving at this decision the Tribunal laid stress on a part of the definition of Agriculture in the amended section 2(1) of the Act which runs as under:-

(3.) The part of the definition stressed by the Tribunal is the words the use by an agriculturist of the land held by him or part thereof for the grazing of his cattle. Relying on the fact that the petitioner had given the land to respondent No. 4 for grazing his cattle the Tribunal reached the conclusion that respondent No. 4 was tenant of the land in question and the petitioner was therefore not entitled to the declaration prayed for by him.