ASHABHAI JIBHAIBHAI PATEL Vs. FULABHAI DADABHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS in both the matters, common question arise for consideration, they are being considered simultaneously.

(2.) SCA No. 344/01 has been preferred by the petitioner landlord for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT and its confirmation thereof by the Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal, whereby in exercise of the power under section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), it is held that the legal heirs of tenant Vaghji Thula would be entitled to purchase the land. SCA No.621/01 has been preferred for challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by Mamlatdar & ALT and its confirmation thereof by the Deputy Collector as well as by Revenue Tribunal whereby, similar order has been passed in favour of the tenant by the Mamlatdar in exercise of the power under section 32(1B) of the Act.

(3.) SINCE we are not required to examine the aspects of proviso, the same need not be reproduced. Perusal of section 32(1B) of the Act shows that the power can be exercised by the Mamlatdar either suo motu or upon an application of the tenant made within the prescribed period for holding inquiry. The legislature speaks for suo motu power or the exercise of the power upon the application. Rule 15A of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956, which has come into force is relevant for the purpose of this petition and which reads as under: