BHIKHAJI MANGAJI RAMTUJI Vs. HEMANGINIBEN LAXMANRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether in proceedings under sec. 32PPP of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Acts 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) it is open to the Revenue Tribunal to set at naught the order passed by the Agricultural Lands-Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) on the plea that the proceedings initialed under sec. 32-G of the Act were ab initio void for want of jurisdiction. The facts which are relevant for answering this question briefly stated are as under.

(2.) Survey No. 240A admeasuring about 1 Acre 35 Gunthas and Survey No. 240B admeasuring about 30 Gunthas of village Nikol district Ahmedabad were of the ownership of Laxmanrao Bajurao. The said survey numbers were in possession of Mangaji Ramtuji as a tenant and he was cultivating the same. Ordinarily the tenant would have become a deemed purchaser by virtue of sec. 32 of the Act on the tillers day but since Laxmanrao was admittedly subject to a physical disability the tenants right to purchase the land was postponed by virtue of sec. 32-F of the Act. Laxmanrao during his lifetime terminated the tenancy of Mangaji under sec. 14 for failure to pay rent and thereafter sought possession of the land by applying to the Mamlatdar under sec. 29 of the Act. The Mamlatdar did not order eviction of the tenant but directed that the rent in arrears should be paid. Against that order Laxmanrao preferred an appeal which was allowed by the City Deputy Collector by his order dated 17/03/1954 and the tenant Mangaji was directed to hand over possession of the land to Laxmanrao. Against this order of the City Deputy Collector in Appeal No. 102 of 1963 a Revision Application No. 1105 of 1965 was preferred by the tenant to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the same was rejected on 7/06/1956 Laxmanrao therefore because entitled to possession of the land in question on the determination of Mangajis tenancy by the order passed by the City Deputy Collector in appeal which came to be confirmed in revision.

(3.) After. the eviction decree became final on the rejection of the revision application on 7/06/1966 the landowner Laxmanrao passed away en 24th January 1567 before possession could be obtained The respondents are the legal representatives of deceased Laxmanrao. It appears that even after his demise the possession of the lands in question continued to remain with the tenant whereupon the Tribunal initiated proceedings under sec. 32G of the Act sometime in 1972 being Case No. 73/32G/72 which was disposed of on 23rd October 1972. A certified copy of the order passed by the Mamlatdar-cum-Tribunal has been placed on record by Mr. A. J. Patel the learned advocate for the petitioners who are the legal representatives of Mangaji RamtuJi who died some time in 1977. A perusal of the order passed in the proceedings under sec. 32 of the Act shows that one of the questions raised for decision was whether Mangaji was cultivating the lands as a tenant. This question was answered in the affirmative by the Mamlatdar-cum-Tribunal. It also appears from the order that since the tenant expressed his unwillingness to purchase the land of which he was said to be a tenant the Mamlatdar-cum-Tribunal acting under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 32G declared that as the tenant was not willing to purchase the land the purchase was ineffective. It may be mentioned that notices of the proceedings initiated under sec. 32G of the Act had admittedly been served on the legal representatives of deceased Laxmanrao. It is also not in dispute that the heirs of Laxmanrao did not challenge the order passed on 23/10/1972 by way of appeal and allowed it to become final.