JAYSHANKER AMBALAL DAVE Vs. HARJIBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition amply demonstrates the plight of the parties who are at times unnecessarily tossed from the pillar to the post and vice-versa. Till this petition has come to be moved in this Court the parties have undergone some 16 proceedings in the one or the other form. Most of the times the matter has been remanded. What is challenged is this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Dhandhuka (the first authority for convenience) on 27th November 1980 in Tenancy Case No. 206 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms-Appeals3 at Ahmedabad (the appellate authority for convenience) on 16th July 1982 in Tenancy Appeal No. 136 of 1981 as further affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 11th June 1984 in Revision Application No. 1687 of 1982. By his impugned order the first authority came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 herein was not entitled to purchase one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 570 admeasuring 6 acres 27 gunthas situated in the sim of village Gorasu taluka Dhandhuka district Ahmedabad (the disputed land for convenience) as his holding as on 1st April 1957 (the Tillers Day) was in excess of the ceiling area and ordered it to be placed for disposal under Sec. 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (the Act for brief).

(2.) This litigation has a somewhat chequered history. Respondent No. 1 herein was the tenant of the disputed land as on 1st April 1957. He therefore would become its deemed purchaser under sec. 32 of the Act subject to certain provisions contained therein. One such provision is found to be in Sec. 32B thereof. If the holding of the tenant as on 1st April 1957 was found to be in excess of the ceiling area either as a tenant or as an owner or partly as a tenant and partly as an owner he would not become the deemed purchaser of the land held by him as a tenant under Sec. 32 thereof. Since respondent No. 1 herein was the tenant of the disputed land as on 1 April 1957 the proceeding under Sec. 32G of the Act was undertaken by the first authority in 1969 It came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. 32 of 1969. By his order passed on 7th July 1969 in the aforesaid proceeding the first authority came to the conclusion that the holding of respondent No. 1 herein was more than the ceiling area for the purposes of the Act and therefore the purchase of the disputed land became ineffective and it was placed for disposal under Sec. 32P thereof. Its copy is part of Annexure E to this petition at page 38. That aggrieved respondent No. 1 herein. He therefore carried the manner in appeal before the appellate authority by means of Tenacy Appeal No. 94 of 1969. By his order passed on 13th December 1969 in the aforesaid appeal the aforesaid order passed by the first authority on 7th July 1969 at Annexure E (part) to this petition came to be set aside and the matter came to be remanded to the first authority for fresh inquiry. On remand the first authority came to the conclusion that the tenant was entitled to purchase the disputed land and fixed its purchase price by his order passed on 29 May 1970 Its copy is part of Annexure E to this petition at page 40.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 has rightly not challenged the impugned order at Annexure A to this petition as affirmed in appeal and revision as his holding was in excess of the ceiling area on 1st April 1957. The petitioner has challenged it because the disputed land is placed at the disposal of the Collector under Sec. 32P (5) of the Act rather than giving it to the petitioner. The grievance voiced by Shri R.A. Patel for the petitioner before me is to the effect that the rights of the parties as on the Tillers Day have to be taken into consideration and the law as applicable on that day will have to be applied and not as applicable on the date of the order at Annexure A to this petition. As against this Shri Rathod for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the impugned order at Annexure A to this petition as affirmed in appeal and revision is quite just and proper and according to law and calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its limited powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri Amin for respondent No. 1 has adopted the submissions urged before me by Shri Rathod for respondent No. 2.