TRIVEDI NAVINCHANDRA AMBALAL Vs. RATHOD BUDHABHAI BHAIJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 23-12-1983 in Revision Application No. TEN/BA/70 of 1981 allowing the Revision Application and setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below it and issuing a direction to the Mamlatdar to hold an inquiry under Sec. 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in accordance with law.

(2.) It appears that the respondent had made an application on 16-12- 1979 to the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Anand under Sec. 32FF of the Act, inter alia contending that the land bearing Survey No. 559/2 admeasuring 2 Acres 30 Gunthas situated in village Kunjrao, Taluka Anand was cultivated by him and his predecessors for more than 60 years on the basis of crop share basis and the land should be sold to him by fixing the purchase price under the Act. The application was rejected by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. on 24-1-1960 and an appeal filed before the Deputy Collector under Sec. 74 of the Act also came to be dismissed on 30th September, 1980. According to the respondent, there was only a paper surrender in favour of the landlord which could not be taken into consideration, since it was not a legal surrender. It was contended that no application for surrender was made by the tenant and the question was decided on the basis of an application for surrender made by the landlord. According to the petitioners, the tenancy was surrendered and possession was handed over on 31-2-1957 pursuant to proceedings for surrender. In any event, thereafter, in proceedings under Sec. 70(b), it was directed by an order dated 1-3-1964 that if possession was with the respondent, it should be handed over to the landlord and accordingly, on 28-7-1964, possession was again handed over to the landlord. Thus, since the respondent was not in possession, from 15-6-1965 to 3-3-1973, he was not entitled to any benefit under the provisions of Sec. 32FF of the Act.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the very basis of the decision of the Tribunal, namely, the petitioners landlord could not have submitted an application for surrender was erroneous. It was argued that an application could be made either by the landlord or by the tenant.