VASANTKUMAR RAMCHANDRADAS MEHTA Vs. RATILAL KALIDAS TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 2 of 1980 decided on 31st March, 1981.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 herein, Shri Ratilal Kalidas Trivedi made a claim to the effect that he is the lawful tenant of the land comprised in Survey No. 18 admeasuring 33 gunthas and situated in village Mehmedabad of Kheda District. He filed an application before the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. under Sec. 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948). The Mamlatdar and A.L.T. under its order dated 10th April 1970 had fixed the purchase price of the said land. On appeal, the learned Dy. Collector under its order dated 31st December, 1970 had remanded the matter back, but that order was taken in revision application. That revision application has also come to be dismissed on 14th December, 1971. As per the remand order made by the appellate authority, the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. under its order dated 30th October, 1972 held that the respondent No. 1 is a tenant of the land in question and further fixed the purchase price of the land. Against this order, the appeal has been filed and the said appeal was allowed. The matter was taken up in the revision application. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision application and remanded the matter to the learned Prant Officer for fresh hearing. The Prant Officer had remanded the matter to the learned A.L.T. under its order dated 19-8-1975. The A.L.T. again held that the respondent No. 1 is the tenant of the land and accordingly fixed the purchase price thereof. Against that order, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority set aside the order of the A.L.T. The revision application has been filed before the Tribunal against the said order of the appellate authority which has been allowed under the order dated 20th April, 1978. The Tribunal held that there was no necessity to decide an application under Sec. 70(b) of the Act when the application was filed under Sec. 32G of the said Act and the question whether the respondent No. 1 was the tenant of the disputed land or not could be decided under Sec. 32G of the Act. So the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority for fresh hearing according to the law and in the light of the observation made by the Tribunal. After making the fresh hearing the appellate authority has confirmed the decision of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T.. The petitioner preferred the revision application against the said decision which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal under the impugned order. Hence this Special Civil Application.

(3.) The learned Mamlatdar held the respondent not to be the legal tenant of the land and fixed the purchase price which order was confirmed by the Collector and ultimately by the Tribunal under the impugned order. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 is a sub-tenant of the land in dispute and in view of the provisions of Sec. 27 of the Act, 1948 the case of sub-tenancy is illegal and therefore, the respondent No. 1 has no right over this land as a lawful tenant. It is not in dispute that the first tenant of this land was Chandulal Bhagulal who was the permanent tenant, but thereafter sub-tenancy was created by one person or the other and ultimately the respondent No. 1 has entered into the possession of the land in dispute.