PATEL UMEDBHAI VITHALBHAI Vs. PANDIT CHANCHAIBEN JUGALRAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 7th April 1980 in Revision Application Nos. TEN. B. A. 888 and 902 both of 1979 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereby the Tribunal upset the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (No. 2) at Kalol ('the First Authority' for convenience) on 16th August 1977 in Tenancy Case No. Nardipur-75 of 1975 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) at Mehsana (the Appellate Authority for convenience) on 30th June 1979 in Tenancy Appeal No. 220. By his aforesaid order, the First Authority accepted the application made by the present petitioner for restoration of possession of two parcels of land bearing survey Nos. 111 and 115 admeasuring 1 acre 5 gunthas and 2 acres 13 gunthas respectively situated at village Nardipur, taluka Kalol, district Mehsana (the disputed lands for convenience) on the ground that the disputed lands were not used for the purpose for which the possession thereof was taken by the landlord under Sec. 32T of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Tenancy Act' for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner is the son of the Vithalbhai Harjivanbhai who was the original tenant of the disputed lands. I shall refer to the deceased father of the petitioner as the original tenant for the sake of convenience. The husband of original respondent No. 1 was the owner of the disputed lands. I shall refer to him as the landlord for convenience. It appears that the landlord was a certified landlord. He obtained possession of the disputed lands in accordance with Sec. 32T of the Tenancy Act. It is obvious that the landlord obtained possession of the disputed lands for his personal cultivation. It appears that during his lifetime he agreed to sell the disputed lands to respondent No. 2 herein. A copy of the agreement executed between the parties on 8th January 1967 is at Annexure-D to this petition. It appears that the landlord thereafter breathed his last leaving behind him original respondent No. 1 as his heir and legal representative. I shall refer to original respondent No. 1 as the widow for the sake of convenience. As the heir and legal representative of the deceased landlord, she agreed to abide by the transaction between her deceased husband and respondent No. 2. She executed the necessary agreement on 20th April 1968. Its copy is at Annexure-E to this petition. It appears that the present petitioner thereupon moved the First Authority with an application under Sec. 37 of the Tenancy Act some time in 1972. It came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. 251 of 1972. It came to be rejected for default of appearance on the part of the present petitioner on 28th September 1972. That aggrieved the present petitioner and he, therefore, carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the aforesaid appeal as time-barred by his order passed on 8th January 1974. The present petitioner thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 141 of 1974. By its decision rendered on 30th April 1974 in the aforesaid revisional application, the Tribunal rejected it. The Tribunal, however, observed in its decision that the present petitioner could make a fresh application under Sec. 37 read with Sec. 39 of the Tenancy Act and the First Authority should decide the same on merits if it was in time and according to law. It appears that, pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal in its decision rendered on 30th April 1974 in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 141 of 1974, the present petitioner made a fresh application on 20th May 1974 before the First Authority under Sec. 37 of the Tenancy Act. It came to be registered as Tenancy Case No. Nardipur-75 of 1975. Since the disputed lands were in possession of respondent No. 2 herein, he was also made a party to the aforesaid proceeding under Sec. 37 of the Tenancy Act. After hearing the parties, by his order passed on 16th August 1977 in the aforesaid proceeding, the First Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord, after obtaining possession of the disputed lands under Sec. 32T of the Tenancy Act, did not use the lands for the purpose for which the possession thereof was taken from the original tenant after terminating his tenancy. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. That aggreived both the widow and respondent No. 2 herein. Both of them carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal of respondent No. 2 came to be registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 220 and that of the widow as Tenancy Appeal No. 220A. After hearing the parties, by his common order passed on 30th June 1979 in the aforesaid appeals, the Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals. Its copy is at Annexure- B to this petition. That again aggrieved both the appellants. Both of them, therefore, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal by means of their Revision Application Nos. TEN. B.A. 902 and 888 respectively both of 1979. By its common decision rendered on 7th April 1980 in the aforesaid two revisional applications, the Tribunal accepted them and set aside the order passed convenience. It appears at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition. Its copy is at Annexure-C to this petition. That obviously aggrieved the present petitioner. He has, therefore, moved this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the decision at Annexure-C to this petition.

(3.) The Tribunal has interfered with the order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition on two grounds. In the first place, the Tribunal found that the present petitioner's application was not maintainable as the right of the deceased tenant was not inheritable. The other ground was that the landlord or in any case the widow had not transferred the disputed lands in favour of respondent No. 2 herein.