PATEL GORDHANBHAI HIRABHAI Vs. THAKOR AMBALAL DESAIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Dy. Collector of Petlad on 20th September, 1982 in Tenancy Appeal No. 119 of 1982 as affirmed in revision by the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rendered on 5/11/1984 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 1882 of 1982 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) This litigation has a chequered history. The dispute centres round one dwelling house belonging to respondent No. 1 situated in the land bearing Survey No. 202/2 admeasuring 38 Gunthas and Survey No. 203/ 10+11 admeasuring 14 Gunthas situated in village Vasana, Taluka Borsad, District Kheda (the disputed land for convenience). Respondent No. 1 herein was its tenant. His tenancy came to be terminated for non-payment of rent. The petitioner-landlord thereafter instituted the proceedings for eviction of respondent No. 1-tenant under Secs. 14, 25(2) and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for brief). It came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. 44 of 1964 in the Court of the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal. Those proceedings terminated in favour of respondent No. 1- tenant. The petitioner-landlord carried the matter in appeal before the Dy. Collector at Petlad. It came to be registered as T. A. No. 103 of 1966. By his order passed on 1/05/1968, the Dy. Collector of Petlad accepted the petitioner-landlord's appeal and ordered eviction of respondent No. 1-tenant from the disputed land. The aggrieved tenant carried the matter in revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal but failed. He thereupon moved this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction presumably under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. His writ petition came to be registered as Special Civil Application No. 433 of 1969. By its judgment passed on 17/ 18/03/1972, his writ petition came to be rejected. Thereafter on application of the petitioner-landlord, he was put in possession of the disputed land by the Mamlatdar on 28/06/1972. At that time a hutlike structure was found in the disputed land. It is not in dispute that it was raised thereon by respondent No. 1-tenant at his own expenses. The petitioner-landlord thereupon moved the Mamlatdar to hand over possession of the site on which the hutlike superstructure was found standing by ordering its removal. The Mamlatdar passed the necessary order on 28/07/1972. Respondent No 1-tenant thereupon carried the matter in appeal before the Dy. Collector at Petlad. His appeal came to be registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 120 of 1972. By his order passed on 14/08/1972, the Dy. Collector dismissed the appeal. The aggrieved tenant thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad. Its revisional application came to be registered as Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 391 of 1972. By his decision rendered in the aforesaid revisional application, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad partly accepted the revisional application and directed the lower authority to determine the compensation in respect of the structure in question under Sec. 41 of the Act to be paid to respondent No. 1-tenant therefor. Thereupon the proceedings were initiated for determining the compensation under Sec. 41 of the Act. Respondent No. 1-tenant made an application for the purpose. It came to be registered as application No. 2 of 1972. By his order passed on 2 5/11/1974, the Mamlatdar rejected it. It was affirmed in appeal by the Dy. Collector by his order passed on 3rd September, 1975. Respondent No. 1-tenant thereupon was obliged to invoke unsuccessfully the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad. It came to be registered as Revision Application No. 134 of 1976. By its decision rendered on 31/03/1976, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal rejected the said revisional application as time-barred. Respondent No. 1-tenant thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by means of his writ petition presumably under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. It came to be registered as Special Civil Application No. 864 of 1976. This Court accepted the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to decide the revisional application in question on its own merits. After remand, it came to be registered as TEN.B.A. 984 of 1979 in the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad. At the time of its hearing, respondent No. 1-tenant sought amendment in his original application No. 2 of 1972 filed before the Mamlatdar praying for a relief under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 17B of the Act alleging that he had become the deemed purchaser of the portion of the disputed land on which bis aforesaid structure was standing. By its order passed on 13/10/1980, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad accepted the amendment application and the matter was sent back to the Mamlatdar for deciding the case under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 17B of the Act. After remand, the Mamlatdar registered the case as Tenancy Case No. 2 of 1980 (Remand). After holding inquiry, by his order passed on 2/06/1982, the Mamlatdar rejected the application made by respondent No. 1-tenant for purchase of the site on which the structure in question was standing. A copy of the order passed by the Mamlatdar on 2/06/1982 is at Annexure "A" to this petition. Respondent No. 1-tenant carried the matter in appeal before the Dy. Collector at Petlad. His appeal came to be registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 119 of 1982. By his order passed on 20th September, 1982, the Dy. Collector accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar at Annexure "A" to this petition. The appellate authority held that the respondent was entitled to purchase the site on which his dwelling house was standing as also the land appurtenant thereto under Secs. 16 and 17B of the Act. A copy of the appellate order is at Annexure "B" to this petition. The petitioner-landlord thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad. His revisional application came to be registered as Revision Application No. TEN B.A. 1882 of 1982. By its decision rendered on 5/11/1984, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejected it. A copy of its decision is at Annexure "C" to this petition. The petitioner-landlord has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the Dy. Collector at Annexure "B" to this petition as affirmed in revision by the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad at Annexure "C" to this petition.

(3.) Shri Jadeja for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order at Annexure-B as affirmed by the decision at Annexure 'C' to this petition cannot be upheld in law for three very good reasons. In the first place, runs the submission of Shri Jadeja for the petitioner. Secs. 16 and 17-B of the Act would not govern the present case as respondent No. 1-tenant came to be evicted from the agricultural land way back in 1972 before the specified date. Secondly, according to Shri Jadeja for the petitioner, Sec. 16 of the Act would be applicable to a dwelling house and not a hut, erected by the tenant on a site belonging to the landlord situated in a village and not on the agricultural land. Besides, runs the submission of Shri Jadeja for the petitioner, the Scheme of Sec. 16 of the Act does not envisage construction of a dwelling house on an agricultural land outside the village site though within its revenue limits. As against this, Shri J. M. Patel for respondent No. 1 has urged that the impugned order at Annexure 'B' to this petition as affirmed in revision by the impugned decision at Annexure 'C' to this petition is quite just and legal and calls for no interference by this Court in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. According to Shri Patel for respondent No. 1, the Scheme of Secs. 16 and 17-B of the Act is designed to protect the tenant from his eviction from the dwelling house (which could be his hut) erected by him on the land taken on lease by him from the landlord and to make him the deemed purchaser thereof if he was in its occupation on the specified date in view of Sec. 17-B thereof.