JAMNADAS JOITARAM SINCE DECD Vs. DEVJI BHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitions arise out of two separate applications filed by deceased Jamnadas Joitaram Prajapati a certified landlord for recovering possession of lands from his excluded tenants who are respondents in these petitions. Two applications bearing No. Nagarwada 27 and 28 were made under sec. 32T of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) in respect of land bearing S. No. 43/7 in case No. 27 and land bearing S. No. 50 in case No. 28 on 29th March 1962. When these applications were pending before the Mamlatdar Jamnadas died on 5th February 1964. One Shrikant Jamnadas who is the petitioner in these petitions claiming to be the heir and legal representative of deceased Jamnadas made an application according to him on 9th March 1964 for bringing him on record a fact disputed by the respondents. Before that date the Mamlatdar dismissed both the applications by his order dated 27th February 1964 observing that the certificate of exemption granted under sec. 88C was not produced. The present petitioner made an application for being brought on record as legal representative of Jamnadas on 16th March 1964 and for restoring the two original applications to file. The Mamlatdar restored both the original applications Nos. 27 and 28 to file on 30th March 1964 after showing petitioners name in the cause title and proceeded further with the inquiry on merits. The Mamlatdar dismissed the applications on 25th May 1964 inter alia holding that the applicant has failed to prove that he bona fide required the land for personal cultivation. The present petitioner preferred two separate appeals bearing Nos. 210 and 211 of 1964. These two appeals were heard together by the learned District Deputy Collector who by his judgment and order dated 21st April 1965 allowed both the appeals observing that a number of irregularities were committed in the conduct of the proceeding before the Mamlatdar and therefore the Mamlatdar's order was set aside and original applications were remanded to the Mamlatdar for disposal according to law. Respondents tenants preferred two separate Revision Applications to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal bearing Nos. TEN. A. 1069 and 1069 of 1965. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by a common judgment allowed these revision applications holding that the original applications before the Mamlatdar had abated under sec. 18(3) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act as the heirs of the deceased Jamnadas were not brought on record within the period prescribed for the same and therefore nothing further was required to be done in the Matter. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of this decision in these two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) As common questions law and facts have been canvassed in both these petitions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) A question of considerable importance has been raised in these petitions. It arises in this manner. One Jamnadas Joitaram Prajapati a certified landlord who held a certificate of exemption issued under sec. 88 made two separate applications on 29th March 1962 against his tenants under sec. 32T for recovering possession of the land leased to each of the tenant on the ground that he required the same for bona fide personal cultivation. When these applications were pending before the Mamlatdar Sankheda certified landlord Jamnadas died on 5th February 1964 According to the present petitioner Shrikant one of the sons of Jamnadas made an application on 9th March 1964 for bringing the legal representative of Jamnadas on record but that aspect is in dispute. However it is common ground that by application dated 16th March 1964 the present petitioner applied for restoring the original applications made by Jamnadas which were dismissed on 27th February 1964 by the Mamlatdar to file and for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Jamnadas on record and permitting him to proceed further with the applications. A contention was raised by the respondent for the first time before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal that in view of sec. 18 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act the application made by Jamnadas had abated by the time the present petitioner applied for being brought on record as a legal representative of deceased Jamnadas. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal accepted the contention and held that as the legal representatives of Jamnadas were not brought on record within one month from the date of his death as required by sec. 18 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act applications have abated and as there is no provision the said Act for setting aside abatement nothing further can be done in this matter and proceedings can be said to have come to an end finally and irrevocably.