HARIVADAN BHAGWANDAS Vs. CHANDABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the land bearing Survey Nos.854, 855/2 and 855/4, admeasuring 1 Guntha, 16 Gunthas and 33 Gunthas, respectively, belong to the petitioners. On 4/10/1977, The Mamlatdar-cum-A.L.T. issued notices under sec.32(G) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ?1948 Act?). Yet another notice to show cause was issued on 10/3/1978 and this notice included Survey Nos.855/2, 855/4 and 855. The present petitioners appeared before the authority and submitted that the land in dispute was not in lawfully cultivating possession of the tenant (present respondent since deceased) and as he was not a tenant, but a licencee, the land could not be settled in favour of the present respondent nor he could be deemed to be a purchaser under the provisions of the Act. It was also submitted that vide different notifications, the land within the periphery / limits of the Municipal Corporation of Baroda was reserved for non-agricultural / industrial purposes, the provisions of 1948 Act would not apply. The tenant / person in possession also submitted his replies and prayed to the authorities that the absolute ownership be conferred upon him as he would be a deemed purchaser under the provisions of the law. The parties were allowed to lead their evidence. The alleged tenant stated before the court that since from the time of his father, they were in cultivating possession and were paying Dan (some rent for use and occupation of the agricultural land) to the owner, under the circumstances, they would be deemed purchaser. During the course of the cross-examination, it was admitted by the alleged tenant that though they were paying the rent, but they were not possessing any receipt, the circumstance was, however, explained by submitting that the land owner was not issuing any receipt.

(2.) The land owner also led evidence. After hearing the parties, the learned Mamlatdar-cum-A.L.T. decided the matter in favour of the alleged tenant holding inter-alia that the alleged tenant was in lawfully cultivating possession, he would be deemed to be a purchaser and the erstwhile owner would be entitled to the price of the land as fixed under the law.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the owner preferred an appeal to the Court of the Collector, who allowed the same. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the alleged tenant took up the matter before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which by its order dtd.13/6/1985 allowed the revision application, set aside the order passed by the Collector and held that the alleged tenant would be deemed to be a purchaser under the provisions of law.