KAMLABEN KESHARICHAND NATHCHAND Vs. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution relating to the lands described in para 2 thereof and prays for an appropriate direction or order setting aside and cancelling the order dated November 28 1957 passed by the Mamlatdar Chikhli the order of the District Deputy Collector dated August 26 1959 and the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal dated October 26 1960 The petition came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Divan who finding that it involved the question of construction of sec. 34(1)(a) proviso sec. 34(2)(c) and sec. 34(2A)(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 as it stood prior to the Amending Act XIII of 1956 referred it to a Division Bench. That is how this matter has come up before us for final disposal.

(2.) The facts leading to the petition may be stated as follows The petitioners husband Kesharichand Nathchand is the owner of certain agricultural lands situate in village Khergam District Surat and respondents 2 to 6 have been at all material times the tenants of the various survey numbers comprised of these lands. The petitioners husband is a lunatic and therefore in her capacity as his guardian and next friend she filed five tenancy applications in the Court of the Mamlatdar Taluka Chikhli against respondents 2 2o 6 for recovery of possession of the said lands in their respective possession on the ground that the lands were required bona fide and for personal cultivation under sec. 34 read with section 29 of the Act. The Mamlatdar held that though the petitioner required the lands bona fide for personal cultivation the petitioner had failed to establish in each case that the income from the lands in question would constitute the main source of income for her maintenance and upon that finding dismissed her applications. The District Deputy Collector in appeals filed by her against the orders of the Mamlatdar also came to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeals. The District Deputy Collector found that the petitioner was in possession of lands in excess of an agricultural holding in area and therefore would be entitled to terminate the tenancy of not more than a moiety of the said lands. Upon that finding he took into consideration the estimated income of one half of the lands in respect of which she would be entitled to terminate the tenancy and on that footing held that the estimated income from a moiety of the said lands would not be in comparison larger than her income from other sources. He therefore rejected the appeals holding that the requirement of sec. 34(2)(c) of the Act was not satisfied and the petitioner was not entitled to terminate the tenancy of the respondents and to recover possession from them of the lands in question.

(3.) Against these orders rejecting her applications the petitioner filed a common revision application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the interpretation placed by the District Deputy Collector on sec. 34(2)(c) of the Act and rejected the revision application.