PATHAN UMRAVKHAN AMIRKHAN Vs. SHAKINABEN W D UMRAVMIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Widow Shakinaben and her sons - original petitioners had filed Special Civil Application No.7239 of 1989 before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with following prayers made in Para : 21 of the Petition :

(2.) Before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the original petitioners, it was submitted that the learned Mamlatdar and ALT, Thasra, had wrongly allowed the Application of the respondent by his order dated 23.10.1984, therefore, it was rightly set aside in Appeal filed by them before Deputy Collector on 28.5.1985. But, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") wrongly allowed the Revision Application of the respondent and quashed and set aside the Judgment and order passed by the learned Deputy Collector by its order dated 5.8.1988. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not to have exercised its revisional jurisdiction in favour of the respondent (present Appellant). It was also submitted that the respondent (present Appellant) had miserably failed to establish his claim of tenancy as he had neither incurred any expenditure nor carried out any agricultural operation and failed to establish that he paid crop share or giving part of the crop to the land lady i.e. original petitioner No.1. It was also submitted before the learned Single Judge that the respondent (present Appellant) failed to prove that he had cultivated the Suit land for the last 20 years as claimed by him and that he had paid rent to the petitioner for the said land. It was also submitted that the respondent (present Appellant) did not even pay the land revenue. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and order dated 5.8.1988 passed by the learned Tribunal, allowing the Revision Application No.TEN.B.A. 446 of 1985 be quashed and set aside as the learned Tribunal exceeded in its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence in revision.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent - present Appellant it was contended that it was a case of concealed tenancy, therefore, he had not produced any documentary evidence about it, but it can be inferred from the evidence led before the Mamlatdar & ALT in this case that he was tenant. It was also submitted that after considering the entire evidence the learned Mamlatdar & ALT by his impugned order held that the respondent was in cultivating possession of the suit land for last 20 years and that he was giving share in the crop to the petitioner, therefore, the learned Dy. Collector was obviously wrong in allowing the Appeal and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT, Thasra. It was also submitted that the approach of the learned Dy.Collector, in allowing the Appeal, was absolutely perfunctory. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector. Therefore, it was vehemently submitted by learned Counsel Shri A.J.Patel for the respondent - present Appellant before the learned Single Judge that when the learned Tribunal had exercised its revisional jurisdiction in favour of the respondent then this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In support of his submission, learned Counsel Shri A.J.Patel had placed reliance on the Judgments of this Court reported in the case of (i) DESAIBHAI SHANABHAI PATEL & ANR. v/s. BHULABHAI PRABHUDAS & ORS., reported in 1996 (1) GLH 170, (ii) RATHOD PUNJABHAI DEVABHAI, THROUGH HIS HEIRS & LR. RUKHIBEN WD/O PUNJABHAI & ORS. v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. reported in 28(1) GLR 104, (iii) CHHAGAN RANCHHOD KUKVAVA v/s. GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY, reported in 1998 (1) 461. and the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of MOHD. YUNUS v/s. MOHD. MUSTAQIM & ORS., reported in AIR 1984 SC 38. In the case of MOHD.YUNUS (Supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that..."A mere wrong decision without any thing more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art.227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority", and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art.227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."