DOSA KALA Vs. DARBAR H DANSINHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the tenants of the respondent No.1. There is no dispute on the point that the subject matter of the land is governed by the provisions of Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As per the scheme of the Act the girasdar would be entitled to 84 acres of land in all including the land which is in his possession for his personal cultivation. If the land which is in his possession for personal cultivation is less than 84 acres the land shall be taken from the holding of the tenant of the said girasdar subject to condition that the holding of the concerned tenant would not less than the economic holding which is of 28 acres. There is also no dispute on the point that the respondent No.1-girasdar would be entitled to have 84 acres of land as per the provisions of the Act.

(2.) It appears that initially the proceedings under the Act were concluded at the level of Mamalatdar and thereafter the Dy.Collector and thereafter before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ( "Tribunal" for short) and the respondent No.1-girasdar was allotted various areas of land details whereof are mentioned in the statement comprising of four blocks. The block No.1 comprises of the land admeasuring 12 acres and 37 gunthas, block No.2 comprises of land admeasuring 18 acres, block No.3 comprises of land admeasuring 30 acres and block No.4 comprises of 7 acres and 36 gunthas. After the decision of the tribunal in Revision Application No.264/69, it appears that Spl.C.A.No.880/73 came to be filed by some of the tenants, namely, Jivraj Ramji and others challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the tribunal. It further appears that in the said petition ultimately as per the judgment, dated 7.3.1977 this court confirmed the allotment of the land to the respondent No.1 so far as it related to Block Nos 3 & 4. However, so far as Block Nos 1 & 2 are concerned, it was found by the court that some of the heirs and legal representatives of Anand Mava and Ramji Vala were not brought on record and they were not heard. Therefore, as per the said judgment this court ultimately passed the following directions:

(3.) It appears that after the aforesaid judgment , the tribunal considered the matter pursuant to the aforesaid remand order and found that the revision qua the concerned heirs and legal representatives stood abated and it was also alternatively found by the tribunal that in any event the heirs and legal representatives were duly represented by the learned advocate Shri B.R.Patel and therefore even if the matter is not treated as abated it would not be necessary to differ with the finding of the earlier member of the tribunal in Revision Application No.264/79 on 30.9.1973. The learned Tribunal, thereafter, maintained the allotment of land of four blocks which was earlier ordered as per the decision dated 30.9.1973 and further directed the Mamalatdar to handover the possession to the applicant-girasdar of the land which is allotted to him as per the decision. The said order of the tribunal, dated 4.10.1982 is under challenge in this petition.