JANKHAN KALUKHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are the exTaluqdar of the villages Rani and Ranod in District Mehsana have challenged the right of State Government to file an appeal under sec. 32P(9) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 as well the order made by the opponent No. 2 herein who is a Special Secretary in Revenue Department of the Government of Gujarat dated 2nd November 1970 which is Ex. L to the petition passed in Appeal No. 449 of 1966 and Appeal No. 2 of 1968 preferred by the tenants of the petitioner Taluqdar remanding the matters involved in the Appeals to the Mamlatdar to determine again whether the appellants in the said appeals were permanent tenants of the petitioners Taluqdar or not. Shortly stated the facts leading to this petition are as under :-

(2.) On enactment of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act of 1949 which came in force from 15th August 1950 the tenure of the petitioners Taluqdar in the villages Rani and Ranod were abolished and on abolition of the said tenure the respondent No. 3 who is the Mamlatdar Patan by his order of 1st June 1962 decided the status of the tenants of the petitioners Taluqdar under sec. 5A of the said Act and he held that except two cultivators of village Rani and five cultivators of village Ranod the other tenants were merely tenants at will of the petitioners Taluqdar and the said seven tenants were the permanent tenants. It appears that after this order some of the cultivators viz. V. Sultanbhai and 27 others who were held to be merely the tenants at will filed an appeal and in the said appeal the order of the respondent No. 1 of 1st June 1962 was set aside by the order of the State Government of 26th July 1963 It appears that the second batch of the cultivators viz. Laxmanbhai and 34 others who were held to be tenants at will by the aforesaid order of Mamlatdar Patan of 1st June 1962 preferred a similar appeal to the State Government and in that appeal also the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar Patan was set aside on 9th August 1966 It appears further that the petitioners Taluqdar being aggrieved with the said orders of the State Government in the two appeals setting aside the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar of 1 June 1962 moved the High Court of Gujarat under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by their Special Civil Applications Nos. 995 of 1963 and 1370 of 1966. The said Special Civil Applications were rejected by the High Court of Gujarat. It appears further that a 3rd batch of 20 cultivators viz. Koli Juha Dajibhai and others the respondents Nos. 4 to 23 herein and a 4th batch of 5 cultivators preferred appeals to the Government of Gujarat against the aforesaid order of Mamlatdar of 1st June 1969 being Appeals Nos. 449/66 and 2/68 respectively. Both the appeals were heard by the respondent No. 2 herein and he by his order of 2nd November 1970 allowed the appeals and set aside the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar Patan of 1st June 1962 and remanded the case to him for a fresh inquiry and decision on the grounds suggested by the respondent No. 2 in his order. It appears that consequent to the aforesaid order of Mamlatdar Patan of 1st June 1962 the Agricultural Lands Tribunal Patan started proceedings under sec. 32G of the Tenancy Act and in those proceedings the Agricultural Lands Tribunal Patan started proceedings under sec. 32G of the Tenancy Act and declared the purchase of lands to be ineffective and thereafter conducted inquiries under sec. 32P of the Tenancy Act. In the proceedings under sec. 32P the Agricultural Lands Tribunal decided that the tenancy in question in respect of the tenants of the petitioners Taluqdar including respondents 4 to 23 stood terminated and that the lands in question should be disposed of under sec. 32P(2)(c) of the Tenancy Act. It appears further that in those proceedings under sec. 32P(2)(c) of the Tenancy Act no person applied for the lands with the result that the lands in question were ordered to be vested in the State Government under sec. 32P(4) of the Tenancy Act. It appears further that after the vesting of the lands in question in the State Government under sec. 32P(4) the Agricultural Lands Tribunal determined the prices of the said lands in several cases and passed orders determining the amount of compensation to be paid by the State Government to the petitioners Taluqdar. It should be recalled that the opponents Nos. 4 to 23 herein had preferred an appeal in November 1966 before the State Government against the order of the Mamlatdar Patan dated 1st June 1962 by their appeal No. 449 of 1966 and in the said appeal the respondent No. 2 has set aside the order of the Mamlatdar Patan and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar to dispose of afresh on the lines indicated in the said order of November 2 1970 The Agricultural Lands Tribunal has determined the compensation under sec. 32P(4) of the Tenancy Act on 28th February 1969 After the determination of the compensation under sec. 32P(4) it appears that the State Government through Mamlatdar Patan has filed an appeal against the aforesaid order determining the compensation to be paid to the petitioners Taluqdar consequent to the vesting of the lands under sec. 32P(4) before the State Government according to sec. 32P(9) of the Tenancy Act on 28th June 1970 The petitioners Taluqdar therefore being aggrieved with the order of the State Government dated 2nd November 1970 in Appeal No. 449 of 1966 filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 23 and also by the appeal filed by the State Government against the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal determining the compensation approached this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writs orders and directions to quash and set aside the order of the State Government dated 2nd November 1970 in Appeal No. 449 of 1966 and also for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of the appeals filed by the State Government against the order determining the compensation.

(3.) This petition was admitted for purposes of the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in sub-para (b) of para 48 so far as the writs orders and directions were sought for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of appeal preferred by the State Government against the order of the Tribunal determining the compensation under sec. 32P(4) of the Tenancy Act. But as regards the relief claimed in sub-para (a) of para 48 of the petition for appropriate writs orders and directions to quash and set aside the order of the State Government in Appeal No. 449 of 1966 setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar Patan of 1st June 1962 and remanding the matter to him for deciding afresh was not admitted.