PATEL GORDHANBHAI GARBADBHAI Vs. PATEL BHAGWANDAS SANABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in respect of S. Nos. 31 32 33 37 and 39 of village Vantadi under Bhiloda Taluka of Sabarkantha District and of S.Nos. 76 78 79 86 89 and 91 of Village Dhuleta under Bhiloda Taluka of Sabarkantha District. All the aforesaid survey numbers of village Vantadi admeasure 20 acres and 18 gunthas. All the aforesaid survey numbers of village Dhuleta admeasure 56 acres and 29 gunthas The total is 77 acres-7 gunthas. The respondents are the landlords and they are brothers.

(2.) According to the petitioner all the aforesaid lands were owned by the respondents and one Fulabhai on 1st April 1957 The respondents were then minors. However since one of the co-owners Fulabhai was major according to the petitioner the lands vested in him as the deemed purchaser. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under sec. 31 read with sec. 29 of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act for the sake of brevity) for recovering possession of all lands on the ground that they require them bona fide for their personal cultivation. They had prior to the institution of the aforesaid proceedings terminated the tenancy of the petitioner by a notice dated 11th October 1962 The aforesaid proceedings were instituted by them on 18th October 1962 The Mamlatdar of Bhiloda decided the application by his order dated 15th November 1964 and held that it was not maintainable. He therefore dismissed it. The landlords appealed against that order to the Prant officer Himatnagar who by his order dated 16th April 1964 held that the petitioner had ceased to be the tenant in respect of all the lands except 8 acres-22 gunthas. He therefore ordered the tenant to surrender to the landlords under sec. 15 of the Tenancy Act all other lands admeasuring 68 acres-25 gunthas.

(3.) The tenant challenged that order in a Revision Application which he filed before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 28th March 1969 remanded the case to the Prant Officer Himatnagar to take evidence on the question whether any of the lands which were the subject matter of those proceedings had been acquired by the State Government for Hathmati Reservoir and to determine how much land was left with the tenant for the purpose of continuing the aforesaid proceedings. On remand the Prant Officer by his order dated 20th September 1971 held that the tenant had ceased to be the tenant in respect of 68 acres and 25 gunthas because that much area he had been holding in excess of the ceiling area. So far as the remaining land admeasuring 8 acres and 22 gunthas was concerned the tenant was allowed to continue in possession thereof. The Prant Officer did not decide after remand how much land had been acquired by the State Government for Hathmati Reservoir.