PATEL SOMABHAI HATHIBHAI Vs. PATEL BAVAJIBHAI ASHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the distant relative of the respondent claims to be a lawful tenant in respect of the agricultural land Survey No. 123/3 admeasuring A 0-21 Gs. and S. No. 124 admeasuring A.1-24 Gs. situated in the sim of village Damol in Petlad Taluka of Kheda District. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been cultivating said land from 1956-1957 to 1977-1978 on crop share basis. In the year 1960 the proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (for short Tenancy Act ) were initiated wherein the petitioner had made a statement that the petitioner cultivated said land as a relative of the respondent and that he was not the tenant of the land in question. According to the petitioner such a statement was given at the instance of respondent and on his assurance that the petitioner would be continued in possession of the land and whenever respondent had an occasion to sell the land the petitioner would be given the first preference to purchase the same. In view of the petitioners aforesaid statement the Mamlatdar dropped 32G proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner contended that even after the aforesaid inquiry and dropping of the proceedings by the Mamlatdar under the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act the petitioner continued to be in possession and cultivation of the land and his name was also continued in relevant record of right as lawful tenant of the land. Thereafter in the year 1977 R.T.S. team visited the village Demol to ascertain concealed tenancy in respect to the agricultural lands possession and cultivation of which was with others than the landlord. R.T.S. team reopened case in respect of such fields by issuing notice to the concerned parties and thereafter made necessary inquiry under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. Accordingly in such inquiry in 1977 the petitioner was issued notice as he was in possession of the land in question. In the said inquiry by R.T.S. team the petitioner at the instance of the respondent reiterated his statement that he was not the tenant of the land in question. As a consequence of such statement the proceedings initiated by R.T.S. team came to be dropped. The Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T III Petlad by his order dt. 7/07/1977 therefore held that the petitioner was not the tenant in respect of the land in question. He therefore ordered to drop the said proceedings.

(3.) It appears that thereafter the respondent made attempts to dispose of the property by way of sale to third party in disregard to his past assurance given to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1977 after the aforesaid inquiry under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act the petitioner was dispossessed of the land in question by the respondent without following due process of law and the procedure as laid down under Section 15 of the Tenancy Act. In the year 1977 the name of the petitioner was struck off from the relevant record of rights. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the aforesaid order passed by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. on 25/07/1977 was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the said order on 15/06/1981 The petitioner thereafter having obtained certified copy thereof preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 112 of 1981 before the Assistant Collector Petlad. The Assistant Collector Petlad by his judgment and order dt. 25/01/1982 dismissed the said appeal on the basis of the statements of the petitioner that he was not the tenant of the land in question.