PATEL NAROTTAMDAS SHANKERLAL Vs. BABABHAI JOITARAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If agricultural land owned by a number of co-owners is given for cultivation to one of the co-owners (such is the problem posed in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) would such a person become entitled to become a deemed purchaser in respect of the said land under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948 ? The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (G. R. T.) has taken the view that one cannot be ones own tenant and therefore one of the co-owners cannot claim to be a tenant of the land even if he is cultiva- ting the land on payment of rent. The petitioner who is one of the Co- owners in respect of the disputed land (S. No. 1554 admeasuring 1 acre- 15 gunthas situated in Chanasma) has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and has contended that the G. R. T. has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in taking the aforesaid view.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The land in question is jointly owned by 60 residents of village Chanasma. They are the co-owners in respect of this land. The petitioner is one of the co-owners. The co-owners decided to give the land for cultivation to someone on payment of rent. An auction was held. The petitioner who was one of the co-owners bid at the auction. He secured the right to cultivate the land on payment of Rs. 232 per annum. Subsequently he claimed to have become entitled to purchase this land under sec. 32-O of the Tenancy Act. An enquiry was instituted by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (A. L.T.) in order to ascertain whether the Petitioner has become entitled to pur- chase the land under sec. 32-O. It was registered as Tenancy Case 32-O/10. By his order dated December 5 1958 the A.L.T. Chanasma upheld the claim of the petitioner that he had become entitled to purchase the land under sec. 32-O. The finding recorded by him was to the effect that the petitioner was one of the 60 co-owners and his interest as a co-owner was very small. On this account (such was the reasoning of A.L.T.) he could be considered a tenant in respect of this land. An appeal was pre- ferred unsuccessfully to the Collector by the respondents. They then invo- ked the revisional jurisdiction of G.R.T. under sec. 76. The G.R.T. took the view that a co-owner cannot become a tenant in respect of the land in view of the fact that one cannot be ones own tenant. The unsuccess- ful co-owner who took the land for cultivation from other co-owners has now challenged the correctness of the view taken by the G.R.T.

(3.) An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue that the finding recorded by the A.L.T. that the land was owned by 60 co-owners of whom the petitioner was one was erroneous. There is no substance in this contention inasmuch as the petitioner himself in his statement has admitted that the land is owned by the 60 owners and that he himself was one of the managers of the 60 co-owners. The evide- nce given to the same effect by one of the respondents has been accepted in the sense that not one single question has been put in the course of cross-examination to challenge the evidence in this behalf. This is a finding of fact which has been affirmed by the G.R.T. and it cannot be upturned in this petition under Article 227 apart from the fact that on merits the finding is unassailable.