PATEL VALLABHABHAI DESAIBHAI Vs. PATEL MANUBHAI CHHOTALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application arises under the following circumstances; Prior to November 24, 1956, the petitioner was cultivating S.No.191 of Vina Village in Nadiad Taluka of Kaira District. This S.No. admeasures 2 acres and 13 gunthas. According to the petitioner he had been cultivating this S.No. for more than 20 years as a tenant and respondent No.1 herein was the owner of this property. According to the petitioner, since he continued to be in possession as a tenant on April 1, 1957, that being the tillers' day, he had become entitled to purchase the land as a deemed purchaser under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the petitioner he was paying a share of the crop to the owner as and by way of rent. On April 15, 1966, the petitioner applied to the Mamlatdar under Section 70(b) of the Act for a declaration that he was a tenant on that date in respect of this land, S.No.191 of Vina village. This Application was rejected by the Mamlatdar. According to the Mamlatdar, the petitioner had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the deceased landlord, Chhotalal, as far back as November 24, 1956, and hence from that date onwards he had ceased to be the tenant and, therefore, he could not be deemed to be the purchaser of this land. Against this order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner went in appeal and the appeal was disposed of by the Deputy collector, Kaira, at Kaira. The Deputy Collector held that there was no valid surrender and he allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar. He also came to the conclusion that the petitioner was cultivating the land as a tenant on April, 1957 and hence had become the deemed purchaser in respect of this land. Against the decision of the Deputy Collector, Kaira, the owner went in revision to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and by its order dated April 26, 1968, the Tribunal reversed the order of the Deputy Collector, Kaira and restored the order of the Mamlatdar and dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 70(b). The Tribunal held that there was no (sic) valid surrender of the tenancy rights of the petitioner and hence the petitioner could not be said to have become a deemed purchaser. The present Special Civil Application has been filed against this order of the gujarat Revenue Tribunal, under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Tribunal has observed in its judgment:-

(3.) Mr. Shah, for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Pundalik v. Kishan Ganpat Bharaskal, Civil Appeals Nos. 1409 and 1721 of 1966, decided by the Supreme Court on 19.10.1970 (reported in AIR 1971 SC 435). The Supreme Court in that case was concerned with the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958; and considered the provisions of Sections 20 and 36 of the Act. Mr. Shah has pointed out to me the following passage from this decision of the Supreme Court:-