CHUNILAL PRAGJIBHAI PATEL Vs. MOTIBHAI BAJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been filed under the following circumstances:- The petitioner is a tenant. He was the tenant in respect of lands bearing S. Nos. 324 741 and 654 of village Anandi and in respect of S. No. 226 Paiki 6 acres-4 gunthas and S. No. 245 Paiki 34 gunthas of village Aniad both in Sinor Taluka of Baroda District. The respondents were the landlords of the lands in question. On 29th March 1957 the landlords filed a suit under sec. 29 against the tenant to recover possession of all the lands. On 31st December 1957 the Mamlatdar decided that suit and made an order for possession in respect of the three lands of Anandi but dismissed the landlords claim in respect of two lands of Aniad. On 16th April 1958 the order for possession was executed and the landlords recovered from the tenant possession of Anandi lands. The tenant did not appeal against that order but the Collector instituted suo motu revisional proceedings under sec. 76A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act for the sake of brevity). Those revisional proceedings came to be known as Revision Application No. 8 of 1958. After hearing both the parties the Collector set aside the order made by the Mamlatdar in respect of Anandi lands and remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for a fresh trial. On 16th June 1959 the Mamlatdar upon remand heard the parties and dismissed the landlords suit. The landlords did not appeal against the order. The order made by the Mamlatdar therefore became final and conclusive.

(2.) So far as the Aniad lands were concerned there was an arbitration between the landlords and the tenant and the arbitrator made an award under which the tenant handed over to the landlords possession of those lands. It may be noted that so far as the Aniad lands were concerned though the tenant handed over their possession to the landlords in pursuance of the arbitration award the action of so surrendering the lands on the part of the tenant to the landlords was not approved by the Mamlatdar under sec. 15. It appears that no intimation thereof was given to him and therefore there were no proceedings under sec. 15 in respect of those lands.

(3.) On 7th March 1967 the Agricultural Lands Tribunal issued to the parties a notice under sec. 32 G of the Tenancy Act for fixing the purchase price of the lands in question. In those proceedings the landlords contended that the tenant had voluntarily surrendered possession. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal by its order dated 26th April 1967 found that the tenant was not in possession of the lands in question and therefore directed that proceedings under sec. 84 of the Tenancy Act be instituted for summary eviction of the landlords from the lands in question as they were in unauthorised possession thereof. By the said order the Agricultural Lands Tribunal also fixed the purchase price of the lands in question at Rs. 9848. The respondent No. 1(one of the landlords) appealed against that order of the Agricultural lands Tribunal. It was Tenancy Appeal No. 62 of 1967. The Prant Officer Dabhoi who heard that appeal dismissed it by his order dated 26th April 1968. He also made an order for summary eviction of the respondents in proceedings instituted under sec. 84 of the Tenancy Act. The landlords challenged those two orders of the Prant Officer Dabhoi. In Revision Application No. 540 of 1968 they challenged the appellate order recorded under sec. 32G of the Tenancy Act. In Revision Application No. 541 of 1968 they challenged the order of summary eviction recorded against them under sec 84 of the Tenancy Act.