MAHENDRASINH RANMALSINH Vs. J R PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 20th September, 1994 in Revision Application no.TEN-B.A.-9/1994. Vide the said judgment the Tribunal has allowed the Revision Application of the present respondent and has set aside the judgment of the Deputy Collector (Appeals) District Kheda at Kheda.

(2.) Ms.Zankhana A. Bhatt learned counsel appearing for Mr.A.J. Patel for the petitioners has submitted before me that the judgment and order of the Tribunal are erroneous and they are required to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the provisions of the Act and that has led the Tribunal to arriving at erroneous conclusions. She has further assailed the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that under the Act even if concerned person does not make the application to the Mamlatdar for expressing him his intention to purchase the land and to determine the purchase price the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. is required to suo motu carry out such exercise and determine the purchase price. In fact, according to her in the instant case a letter has been addressed by the petitioner for this purpose and the same has been treated as application under the Act. The finding given by the Tribunal is that no such application has been made and, therefore, it is not in consonance with the evidence produced on record. She has also submitted that the Tribunal, while deciding the Revision Application has transgress its limits and it has embarked upon the fact finding exercise by appreciating the entire evidence afresh which is not permissible under the provisions of Section 76 of the Act. She has submitted that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the scope of the Tribunal is very limited and except for the grounds mentioned in that section, the Tribunal cannot upset the findings given by the authorities below. As second limb of this argument she has submitted that before entering upon the fact finding exercise the Tribunal was required to come to the conclusion that there was an error committed by the appellate court in appreciating the important evidence which had resulted into miscarriage of justice. Since no such finding has been given by the Tribunal, it was not permitted under the law to base its judgment on the questions of fact. In support of her contentions she has relied on several decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court which will be referred to in due course.

(3.) I may first consider the last submission of Ms.Bhatt which is based on the provisions of Section 76 of the Act. Section 76 (1) of the Act reads as under :- SECTION 76 (1) :- Notwithstanding anything contained in the [Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957] an application for revisions may be made to the [Gujarat Revenue Tribunal] constituted under the said Act against any order of the Collector [except an order under Section 32P or an order in appeal against an order under subsection (4) of Section 32G] on the following grounds only-