PATEL KESHAVLAL ISHWARDAS Vs. PATEL RAMABHAI JESANGDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated April 16, 1984 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application/No. TEN. B.A. 1075/80 allowing the revision application and quashing and seting aside the orders of the courts below to the effect that the respondents Nos. 1164 were not entitled to purchase the said land as deemed purchaser under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act")

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the petition may be summarised thus : In an inquiry under section 32G of the said Act, the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Kadi, by the order dated January 12,1977, in Tenancy Case No,3/76 held that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were not entitled to purchase the land bearing Survey No.1811 admeasuring Acre 2-9 Gunthas situate in revenue limits of village Kadi. The respondents-tenants, therefore, preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 1049 of 1979 under section 74 of the said Act before the Deputy Collector, Mehsana, who dismissed the said appeal, vide his order dated June 26, 1980. The respondents-tenants, being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the appeal, preferred the aforesaid revision application which came to be allowed by the Tribunal, as stated above. It is this decision which is under challenge in the present petition. Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Jesingbhai- Palidar who was the tenant in respect of the land in question and also the father of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, surrendered the land by his application dated July 13, 1956. Mr. Patel also invited my attention to the statement recorded of deceased Jesingbhai Tribhovan to the effect that he has surrendered the possession without any coercion, fear, temptation or threat The said statement was recorded by Mamlatdar, Kadi, on June 24, 1956. Pursuant to the said application and the statement of the deceased Jesingbhai, Mamlatdar, Kadi, passed the order on November 17, 1956 to terminate the tenancy of deceased Jesingbhai Tribhovandas of Kadi. The Courts below recorded concurrent findings which should not have been disturbed, according to Mr. Patel, by the Tribunal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under sec.76 of the Act.

(3.) On careful consideration of the matter, I am unable to accept submission of Mr. Patel. The Tribunal has recorded the finding to the effect that the extract of village form No.7-12 disclosed that Jesingbhai, deceased father of the respondent-tenants had been cultivating the land in question for the year 1953-54. It appeared to the Tribunal that the name of the deceased Jesingbhai was got removed by the mutation entry No.2749 dated March 21,1957 by, the landlord, who was the Munim of an advocate knowing the law full well. It appears from the record that the deceased Jesingbhai, the original tenant, paid Santh firstly of Rs.50/- which came to be increased to Rs.80/- later. The latest receipt of the said Santh of Rs.80/- is dated February 1,1958. That goes to substantiate the case in favour of the respondent- tenants that the tenant was in possession and was cultivating the land on the tiller's day i.e. on 1-4-1957. The Tribunal having perused the file of Mamlatdar, concluded that deceased Jesingbhai, father of the respondent-tenants, cultivated the disputed land even in the year 1942-43 and thereafter continuously till 1956-57, which has been established from the documentary evidence on record.