NARSING MANGANLAL PADHIYAR Vs. FIROZSHA RATANSHA BULSARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "GRT") in Revision Application No.TEN/BS/1302/1993.

(2.) The chronology of chequered history of case as transpiring from the record is that the petitioner had made an application before the Mamlatdar and ALT, Valsad, seeking declaration under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") that he was the tenant in respect of the land situated at Block No.52 of Village Vankal, Taluka & District Vankal. The Mamlatdar and ALT, vide order dated 2.7.1985 allowed the said application, declaring the petitioner to be the tenant of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.1, owner of the land had preferred the appeal before the Deputy Collector, who dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The said order passed by the Deputy Collector was challenged by the respondent No.1 before the GRT by filing the Revision Application No.80/1986. Pending the said Revision Application before the GRT, the respondent No.2 claiming to be the subsequent purchaser of the land in question had submitted an application for being impleaded as party in the said Revision Application. The said application of the respondent No.2 came to be dismissed by the GRT vide order dated 22.9.1988. The said order remained unchallenged at the instance of the respondent No.2. The GRT thereafter allowed the said Revision Application No.80/1986 filed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 20.7.1989, setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector as well as by the Mamlatdar and remanded the case to the Mamlatdar and ALT afresh. It appears that pending the said proceedings, the respondent No.2 had filed the Suit in the Civil Court being Regular Civil Suit No.28/1983, seeking declaration and injunction against the petitioner in respect of the land in question and had also filed an Application Exh.5, seeking temporary injunction pending the said suit. The said Application Exh.5 was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 21.8.1984 and the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The Revision Application filed by the respondent No.2 against the said order was also dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 21.4.1987.

(3.) The Mamlatdar and ALT, after the case was remanded by the GRT, recorded the evidence afresh and again declared the petitioner as the tenant in respect of the land in question vide the order dated 12.3.1990. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.1 had preferred the appeal before the Deputy Collector, which came to be partly allowed vide order dated 30.9.1993.