PARVATIBEN BHANABHAI PATEL Vs. JUGABHAI JEEBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus or certiorari to set aside the order passed by the City Deputy Collector Ahmedabad dated the 7th of June 1961 and to compel the State Government to grant a lease in respect of the land in question viz. survey No. 231 for the year 1961-62 to the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of survey No. 230 which is situate adjacent to the land in question viz. survey No. 231. Survey No. 231 is a land which became liable to be disposed of under section 32P or section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Until its final disposal as contemplated under the Act the land was to be given on lease for a year so that it may not remain uncultivated until the time that it was disposed of. On the 24th of August 1959 an eksal lease was granted by the revenue authorities to the petitioner for the year 1959-60 On the expiry of that lease the petitioner applied on 22nd February 1961 for a fresh eksal lease for the year 1960-61. A similar application was also made by two other individuals the 1st respondent and one Kevdaji Panaji. By his order dated May. 20 1960 the mamlatdar granted lease for the year 1960-61 to the 1st respondent and Kevdaji. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order and by his order dated June 23 1960 the Deputy Collector set aside that order of the mamlatdar. The 1st respondent thereupon filed an appeal before the collector. The collector held that no appeal lay against the order passed by the mamlatdar but nevertheless set aside the order of the mamlatdar and remanded it to the mamlatdar observing that the mamlatdar had passed the order in a perfunctory manner. After the matter went back to the mamlatdar the parties were said to have led evidence and on August 30 1960 the mamlatdar passed an order holding that whereas the petitioner was an agriculturist within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 the 1st respondent was not. The 1st respondent thereupon filed a revision application dated October 24 1960 The collector dismissed that revision application confirming the mamlatdars order which was in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) On February 28 1961 the mamlatdar issued a notice inviting applications for a lease of the said land for the year 1961-62. The petitioner as also the 1st respondent filed their applications accordingly on the 7th of March 1961. It is alleged by the petitioner that between March 7 1961 and April 25 1961 she made inquiries in the office of the mamlatdar but no satisfactory reply was given to her and she was in fact told that her application was still pending However she received an order of the mamlatdar dated April 7 1961 whereunder survey No. 231 was given on lease for the year 1961-62 to the 1st respondent. She filed an appeal before the collector. The collector held that no appeal lay before him and thereupon she filed a revision before the State Government presumably under section 86 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. She was informed on the 6th of June 1961 that the Government did not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the mamlatdar. On June 8 1961 possession of survey No. 231 was taken from the petitioner and the requisite panchnama was made. Contrary to the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition the panchnama records that the petitioner had removed the harvest from the land in question and that only stalks of jowar crop worth about Rs. 40/remained in the land. On June 8 1961 the petitioner filed the present petition.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Pathak on behalf of the petitioner was that section 84D of the Act under which the mamlatdar passed the order in question contemplates an inquiry that that inquiry is a judicial or a quasi-judicial inquiry and that being so it was incumbent upon the mamlatdar to give a hearing to the petitioner before he passed his order in question. The contention in other words was that the mamlatdar while passing the order in question violated the principles of natural justice and therefore his order must be held to be illegal and void. In our view there is no substance in this contention.