KANBI PURIBEN PARMABHAI Vs. DALCHHABHAI BHIKHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the Order dated 6th December, 1988 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.10.B.A.276/85 under which it had reversed the order passed by the Mamlatdar and the order passed by the first Appellate Authority.

(2.) The short facts leading to the present Writ Application are that the respondent claiming to be a permanent tenant made an application on 31st August, 1972 under Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ["the Act" for short], read with Rule 14 of the Rules framed thereunder, submitting, inter alia, that he was a tenant on 1st April, 1957 and he is to be deemed to be a purchaser and would be entitled to purchase the land under Section 32 of the Act. It was submitted by him that he was the tenant of one Ramaben, widow of Kanji Bechar; said Ramaben expired on 14th January, 1971, but, immediately thereafter, armed with a gift deed executed somewhere in the year 1966, the said tenant was dispossessed by the donees with the help and assistance of their people. Subsequent thereto, the tenant-respondent made an application for withdrawal of the main application; despite opposition by the present petitioners, the Mamlatdar allowed the said application to be withdrawn. Thereafter, the respondent-tenant made yet another application on 18th October, 1973 under Section 32(1B) of the Act praying, inter alia, that he has been illegally dispossessed after the death of the land holder, he is entitled to possession and a declaration in his favour that he is to be deemed to be the purchaser.

(3.) Shri Suthar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that withdrawal of the application, which was earlier filed under Section 29 of the Act would amount to res judicata and as the application was not filed within two years from the date of dispossession, which, according to the petitioners, was somewhere in the year 1966, the application was barred by limitation and lastly, that in view of the gift deed, the petitioners have become absolute owners of the property and within two years from the date of execution of the gift deed, the application had not been filed.