BHIKHABHAI NARSIBHAI POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF VALLABHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI Vs. FARDUNJI RUSTAMJI ADAJANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a lease deed dated 13/07/1917 land bearing Survey No. 616/2 (A.O.G. 23) and Survey No. 630/3 (A.O.G. 19) of Adajan was given on lease to Edalji Hormasji the grandfather of the respondent for a period of five years for tapping toddy trees at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per tree. It appears that after the efflux of time prescribed in the rent note the grandfather of the respondent continued in occupation of the aforesaid two Survey Numbers. There is no evidence to the effect that the land-owners had obtained possession of the land from the respondents grandfather till his death. At the relevant point of time when the respondent made an application after the tillers day that is 1/04/1957 for being declared the deemed purchaser and for fixation of the purchase price the name of the present respondent was mutated in the revenue records as the occupant of the land.

(2.) The respondent made an application under sec. 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) for determination of the price of the land to be paid by him as deemed purchaser to the land owners. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal by its order dated 28/12/1967 determined the price but the said order was set aside with a direction to hold the inquiry de novo after notice to the landlords. In the de novo inquiry held by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal the Tribunal fixed the price of the land at Rs. 1800.00 and permitted interest thereon at 4 1/2 per cent per annum with effect from 1/04/1957 by an order dated 17/02/1975 The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent was a deemed purchaser of the land in question within the meaning of sec. 32 of the Act and was therefore entitled to purchase the land at the price determined by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. Against this order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under sec. 32-G of the Act the land-owners preferred an appeal to the Assistant Collector Choryasi Prant Surat. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 31/08/1976 confirmed the order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Against the said order the land owners preferred a Revision Application to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which was heard and disposed of on 9/02/1978. The Revenue Tribunal came to the conclusion that the land in question was agricultural land which was being cultivated by the present respondent by growing grass and vegetables. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that even if the respondents statement that he was growing vegetables in the land was disbelieved the evidence on record clearly indicated that grass was grown in the land and therefore it could safely be said that the land was being cultivated for carrying out agricultural operation therein. The Tribunal further observed that even Khajura trees require looking after which would result in agricultural operation. In this view that the Tribunal toot the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the authorities below and rejected the Revision Application. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the landlords have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) At the hearing of this petition Mrs. Mehta the learned advocate for the landlords raised the following questions: