GORDHANBHAI MOTIBHAI BARVA Vs. MOHANBHAI JITABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 880 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it arises in these circumstances.

(2.) the petitioner is the occupant and the respondent is the tenant of 5. No. 981 admeasuring 9 acres 3 gunthas of village Picchuwada Taluka Sankheda District Baroda. The petitioner having made an application under sec. 88C of the Act obtained a certificate that the said land was exempt from the provisions of secs. 32 to 32R of the Act. The date on which this certificate was issued is not capable of being ascertained from the record. It appears that the respondent thereafter moved the State Government by an application praying that the said certificate should be revoked under the provisions of sec. 88D of the Act inasmuch as the conditions for exempting the land under sec. 88C had ceased to exist. Thereupon the State Government by its order dated 6th December 1963 revoked the certificate with effect from the date of the said order. The order was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 19th December 1963 and a copy of the order was served on the petitioner on 9th February 1964.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 27th April 1964 terminating the tenancy of the respondent in respect of the said land and the said notice was served on the respondent on 2nd May 1964. On 14th December 1964 the petitioner filed an application for possession of the said land under sec. 88D read with sec. 31 and sec. 29 of the Act on the ground that the land in question was bona fide required by him for personal cultivation. The application was filed before the Mamlatdar of Sankheda who by his judgment and order dated 16th September 1966 dismissed the said application inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner had failed to prove that he bona fide required the land in question for personal cultivation and that the income from the suit land would be the main source of income for the petitioner and further that the application for possession was time barred as it was not filed within one year from the date specified in the order made under sec. 88D revoking the certificate issued under sec. 88C of the Act. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the Special Deputy Collector Baroda who heard the said Appeal reversed the decision of the Mamlatdar of Sankheda on the points decided against the petitioner. The Special Deputy Collector however confirmed the decision of the Mamlatdar on a different ground and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not proved that the land stood in the name of his ancestor or himself on 1st January 1952 as required by sec. 31A(d) of the Act. The petitioner thereupon carried the matter in revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the decision of the Special Deputy Collector on the sole point decided against the petitioner. The Tribunal however upheld the order on the Special Deputy Collector on a different ground the ground being that the application for possession filed by the petitioner was time barred and dismissed the revision application. In the opinion of the Tribunal since the application for possession for the land in question was filed by the petitioner after the expiry of period of one year from the date specified in the order revoking the exemption certificate the application was time barred having regard to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 88D of the Act. It is this decision of the Tribunal which is impugned before me in this petition.