JITENDRABHAI MULJIBHAI DALWADI Vs. CHHATRASINH PRATAPSINH VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dtd. 4/4/2011 passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT dtd. 8/7/1997 in Tenancy Case No. 87 of 1996 as also the order passed by the Deputy Collector (LR), Appeals, Vadodara dtd. 19/12/2003 passed in Tenancy Appeal No. 73 of 2001 and the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (GRT) dtd. 20/1/2004 in the Revision Application No. 188 of 2004, subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.

(2.) The facts noted by the learned single Judge discerned from the record, are that the land bearing Survey No. 816 situated at Gorva, Vadodara, subject matter of consideration in the original writ petition, was mutated in the name of Kushaldas Fulabhai vide Mutation Entry No. 514 dtd. 1/9/1954 after partition in the year 1954. The name of one Chhatrasinh Pratapsinh was entered in the revenue records as a 'protected tenant' being in occupation of the land-in-question vide Revenue Entry No. 588/38. It seems that vide registered sale deed dtd. 6/7/1955, the land-in-question was sold by the original landlord, namely Kushaldas Fulabhai and others to one Muljibhai Mathurbhai Dalwadi, the father of the original petitioner. It is the case of the original petitioner that in the Tenancy Case No. 141 of 1995 under the Bombay Tenancy Act' 1948, the tenant, namely Chattrasinh Pratapsinh, father of the original respondent No.1 had foregone his rights and surrendered the tenancy and the possession of the land-in-question was handed over to the original landlord namely, Kushaldas Fulabhai, the predecessor-in-title of the original petitioner.

(3.) In the year 1996, the proceedings under Sec. 32G under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act' 1948, applicable in the State of Gujarat (in short referred to as the 'Tenancy Act, 1948), namely Tenancy Case No. 87 of 1996 was initiated by the heirs of the original tenant namely Chattrasinh Pratapsinh before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Vadodra, wherein the original petitioner and other heirs of the purchaser namely Muljibhai Dalwadi had been joined as party respondents as land owners. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.1 (heirs of the tenant) remained present before the Mamlatdar and ALT and therefore, by the order dtd. 8/7/1997, the Mamlatdar and ALT had disposed of the said proceedings declaring the sale in favour of the respondent No.1 namely the heirs of the original tenant as ineffective under Sec. 32G (3) of the Tenancy Act, 1948 and passed an order to dispose of the land-in-question as per the provisions of Sec. 32P of the Tenancy Act' 1948.