JETENDRABHAI JASHBHAI PATEL Vs. MOHANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 31st January 1991 in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 624 of 1984 as affirmed in review by it by its decision rendered on 12th August 1993 in Review Application No. TEN.C.A. 1 of 1993 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned decision the Tribunal upset the permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand on 11th/16th January 1982 under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (the Act for brief) to the predecessor-in-title of respondent No. 5 herein (the deceased for convenience) to sell one parcel of land bearing survey No. 1478/1 admearuring 0.08 gunthas situated at Anand district Kheda (the disputed land for convenience) to the petitioner herein.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The deceased was the tenant of the disputed land as on 1st April 1957. According to the petitioner the deceased became its deemed purchaser with effect from 13th December 1960. Its purchase price was fixed but the landlords representatives that is. respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein disputed the purchase price so fixed. That dispute has nothing to do with this petition. It appears that the deceased applied to the competent officer for permission under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Act to sell the disputed land to the present petitioner. By his order passed on 11th/16th January 1982 the Deputy Collector at Anand granted permission. Thereupon the deceased sold the disputed land to the present petitioner by a registered sale deed executed on 6 March 1982. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. Pursuant thereto the disputed land appears to have been mutated in the name of the present petitioner in the revenue records. Its extract is at Annexure-B to this petition. It appears that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as the landlords of the disputed land came to know of the transaction between the deceased and the present petitioner pursuant to the permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand on 11th/16th January 1982 under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Act for its sale. They thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of their Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 624 of 1984 for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand for sale of the disputed land by the deceased to the present petitioner. By its decision rendered on 31st January 1991 in the aforesaid revisional application the Tribunal accepted it and the aforesaid permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand on 11th/16th January 1982 for sale of the disputed land by the deceased to the present petitioner was set aside. A copy of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Tribunal on 31st January 1991 is at Annexure-D to this petition. It may be mentioned at this stage that the present petitioner was not made a party to the revisional proceeding culminating into the decision at Annexure-D to this petition. The petitioner appears to have come to know of it. He therefore approached the Tribunal for seeking its review by means of his Review Application No. TEN.C.A. 1 of 1993. The memo of the Review Application is at Annexure-E to this petition. By its decision rendered on 12th August 1993 in the aforesaid Review Application the Tribunal rejected it inter alia on the ground that the present petitioner had no locus standi in the matter. Its copy is at Annexure-F to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned decision at Annexure-D to this petition as affirmed in review by the impugned decision at Annexure-F to this petition.

(3.) It transpires from the decision at Annexure-F to this petition that the Tribunal refused to exercise its review jurisdiction mainly on the ground that the present petitioner was not a necessary party to the revisional proceeding culminating into its decision at Annexure-D to this petition. I think this approach of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law for the simple reason that the petitioner purchased the disputed land pursuant to the permission granted by the Deputy Collector at Anand under Section 43 read with Section 63 of the Act. It is obvious that once the deceased sold the disputed land to the petitioner the former would cease to have any interest in any proceeding taken out pertaining to the disputed land. Any proceeding pertaining thereto culminating into any adverse order would obviously affect the petitioner. He would therefore be a necessary party to the proceeding; else his rights would stand jeopardised becasue the vendor might have lost all interest in such proceeding.