PRAVINCHANDRA M PATEL Vs. VASUDEV MURLIDASJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.1.1989 passed by the Gujarat State Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.417/85 whereby the revision is allowed and the order of the Asst.Collector is set aside.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was claiming right as tenant of the agricultural land. Applications were made by the petitioner for declaring him as tenant. Initially, there were earlier proceedings and the matters were remanded and thereafter ultimately on 22.8.84 the Mamalatdar and the ALT passed order whereby it was found by the Mamalatdar that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was the tenant of the agricultural land and in the order of the Mamalatdar it has been recorded that the joint landlords, namely, Desaibhai Parshottambhai Patel, Shanabhai Laxmidas Patel, Gordhanbhai Dhulabhai, Ashabhai Nagjibhai, Motibhai Keshubahi and Mansangbhai Lallubhai who have been examined have declared that the land is cultivated by self-cultivation by the respondent and the petitioner has not cultivated the land at any point of time. It was also recorded by the Mamalatdar that the notice is not proved nor the agreement (patta) is also proved.

(3.) The matter was carried before the Asst.Collector.However, the Ld.Asst.Collector by his order dated 13.2.1985 allowed the appeal by accepting the evidence of notice and of patta and by discarding the oral evidence of the witnesses. The matter was carried before the Gujarat State Revenue Tribunal in revision and the tribunal after examining the record found that the finding of the Asst.Collector is not supported by the evidence on record in as much as since no person was examined as the author of the notice and since agreement (patta) is not signed and no witnesses are examined for the said purpose. Both the documents on the basis of which reliance is placed are wrongly taken as proved by the Asst.Collector and therefore the tribunal found that since there is no evidence produced on record regarding relationship of tenancy the order of the Asst.Collector deserves to be quashed and set aside and the order of the Mamalatdar deserves to be confirmed and hence this petition.