RATILAL BHOGILAL DAVE Vs. DAHYABHAI CHATURBHAI BARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Petlad on 23rd September 1983 ('the first authority' for convenience) in Tenancy Case No. S.R. 11 of 1983 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Deputy Collector at Petlad on 23rd January 1984 in Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1983 as further affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 23rd October 1986 in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 225 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned Order, the first authority declared the respondent herein to be entitled to statutory purchase of certain parcels of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 334/1 and 341 admeasuring 9 acres 11 gunthas and 0 acre 8 gunthas respectively situated in Village Changa, Taluka Petlad, District Kheda ('the disputed lands' for convevience) and ordered restoration of their possession to the respondent herein.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The respondent herein was the tenant of the disputed lands prior to 15th June 1955. He appears to have surrendered his possession thereof to the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner some time in 1963. The respondent expressed his unwillingness to purchase the disputed lands in the proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for brief). Thereupon the sale thereof became ineffective. It appears that thereafter also the respondent tenant made , certain applications showing his willingness to purchase the disputed lands under the Act but later on resiled from such willingness. Thereafter the proceedings under Section 32P were initiated by the first authority. The case came to be registered as 32/P Case No. 107. By his order passed on 27th April 1967 in 32/P Case No. 107, the first authority held the present petitioner to be entitled to the disputed lands. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. It appears that the son of the respondent herein made one application to the first authority on 2nd May 1983 for an inquiry under Sections 32F and 70 of the Act. Thereupon the first authority initiated suo motu inquiry for the purpose. On inquiry the first authority found the respondent herein to be the tenant of the disputed lands and in possession thereof on 15th June 1955, the appointed day for the purpose. It was also found that he was dispossessed sometime in 1963. Thereupon the first authority initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 32 (1B) of the Act by issuing the show-cause notice to the concerned parties including the present petitioner. The proceedings came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. S.R. 11 of 1983. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his order passed on 23rd September 1983 in Tenancy Case No. 11 of 1983, the first authority declared the respondent herein to be entitled to purchase of the disputed lands under the Act and ordered restoration of their possession to him. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. The aggrieved landlord carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector at Petlad by means of his Tenancy Appeal No. 138 of 1983. By his order passed on 23rd January 1984 in the aforesaid appeal, the Deputy Collector dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner-landlord thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of his Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 225 of 1984. By its decision rendered on 23rd October 1986 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure D to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure B to this petition as affirmed in appeal and revision by the order at Annexure C and the decision at Annexure D respectively to this petition.

(3.) All the three lower forums have concurrently found that the respondent was the tenant of the disputed lands and was in possession thereof on 15th June 1955 and that he was dispossessed by the landlord some time in 1963. It thus becomes clear that two important conditions for applicability of Section 32(1B) of the Act were found to be satisfied inasmuch as the respondent was in possession of the disputed lands as the tenant on 15th June 1955 and he was dispossessed by the landlord before the specified date, that is, 3rd March 1973. These findings are findings of fact and, in exercise of its limited powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot upset them unless they are found to be perverse. With respect, the aforesaid findings of fact concurrently recorded by all the three lower forums are not shown or found to be perverse in any manner.