GOBARBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SARDHARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Mengdey, learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2 waives service of rule, Mr.Barot, learned Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 and Mr.Patel, learned Counsel appears for the surviving Trustees of the Trust, who are joined as respondents No.5 to 15, but as they are impleaded as Trustees, the remaining Trustees are represented through Mr.Patel, who waives service of notice of rule. Mr.Chhaya, learned Counsel for respondents No.16 and 17 waives service of rule and Respondent No.18 is served by direct service, however, he has chosen not to appear.

(2.) With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard today.

(3.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are claiming rights as the purchaser of the land bearing Survey No.99 and 133 of Village Abrama, Taluka Valsad. It appears that the property was held by the Shri Takhateshwar Mahadev Temple which is a public trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act and as per the Trustees and it appears that when the charity Commissioner passed the order for the first time for registration of the Trust and formation of the Scheme, respondents No.16 and 17 were also inducted and shown as the Trustees of the Trust. It may be stated that it is the case of the respondents No.16 and 17 before this Court that they did not agree for becoming "Pujari" of the Trust and trustees of the Trust and they also preferred appeal before the higher forum. It appears that respondents No.16 and 17 submitted application to the Mamlatdar and ALT under Section 70(b) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for declaration of their status as the tenants and the said application was registered as Application No.773/1993. In the said application, one of the opponents was shown as Shri Takhateshwar Mahadev Mandir and Opponent No.2 was shown as heir. It appears that the other Trustees of the Trust were not impleaded as party. The Mamlatdar passed the order on 15.3.1994 without giving opportunity of hearing to the other Trustees of the Trust and declared the status of respondents No.16 and 17 as tenants of the land bearing Survey No.99 and 133. The matter was carried in appeal before the Dy. Collector and thereafter in revision before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal in the revision as per the order dated 8.11.2004 found that the order passed by the Mamlatdar as well as by the Dy. Collector are not legal and valid and allowed revision and the orders passed by the Mamlatdar as well as by the Dy. Collector are set aside, but it is further directed that the application made by respondents No.16 and 17 under Section 70(b) of the Act is dismissed. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring this petition.