VASANTRAI J MALI Vs. KANTILAL ZAVERBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner above named had filed tenancy case No.8855/1983 before the learned Mamlatdar and A.L.T. (Agriculture Land Tribunal) at Pardi for an order permitting the petitioner to purchase 37 gunthas of land of survey No.96 B/1 situated at village Motha Vaghchipa in Pardi taluka. The learned Mamlatdar recorded the evidence produced before him, and thereafter, he came to a decision that the petitioner was entitled to be held to be a deemed purchaser in respect of 7 gunthas of the said survey number. It was also directed that the petitioner shall purchase the said piece of land from the said survey number on payment of Rs.1070.00 by two annual installments. This would mean that the tenancy case of the petitioner was partly allowed. In fact, he claimed the land admeasuring at 37 gunthas. However, the learned Mamlatdar granted him land of an area of 7 gunthas only rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the land admeasuring at 30 gunthas.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 24.2.1984 of the learned Mamlatdar, A.L.T. placed at annexure-A, at page 8 to the petition, the first respondent herein preferred tenancy appeal being tenancy appeal No.436/84. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed tenancy revision being tenancy revision No.1454/84 before the learned Deputy Collector (land reforms) at Valsad. The learned Deputy Collector heard the parties and found that the appeal as well as revision application both were without any merits, and, therefore, the learned Deputy Collector dismissed the said appeal as well as revision by judgment and order dated 22.4.1985. The judgment has been place at anenxure-B at page 13 to the petition.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Deputy Collector the first respondent preferred revision application being No.TEN-B-5-71/85. The learned Tribunal heard the parties and allowed the said revision application of the first respondent setting aside the orders of the learned Deputy Collector as well as of the learned Mamlatdar referred to herein above. The learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal found that the dwelling house occupied by the present petitioner was not built at the expense of the petitioner nor it was built at the expense of his predecessor-in-title and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be treated to be a deemed purchaser, in view of the provisions made in Section 17-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Therefore the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar and confirmed by the learned Deputy Collector treating the appellant to be entitled to purchase 7 gunthas of land in question has been quashed and set-aside by the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.