AMRITLAL K SHARMA Vs. DAHYABHAI JIBHAIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Trilok Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri G. V. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The case has a chequered history which starts right from 1951-1952. According to the petitioners, respondent was not in possession of the suit lands in the year 1951-1952 and was also not cultivating the property. However, on 28-10-1956, a mutation entry No. 1920 was made in the revenue records under which name of the present respondent was deleted as he was not cultivating the suit land and name of the present petitioner being in cultivating possession was recorded. Somewhere in the year 1961, Mamlatdar-cum-A.L.T. commenced proceedings under Sec. 32G of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, granted proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and after holding that the respondent was not a tenant vide his judgment dated 8-6-1961 directed to drop the proceedings. The said order was not challenged by any party.

(3.) On 28-6-1966, in pursuance of the said order, a mutation entry No. 2638 was made. It is to be noted that up to 1966, earlier order dated 8-6-1961 holding that the present respondent was not a tenant and was not in cultivating possession was not challenged by the petitioners and the same atlained finality. On 20-12-1976, the present respondent made an application before the Mamlatdar seeking an order under Sec. 31(1B) and under Sec. 32FF of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter referred as "the Act"). Thereafter, various proceedings were conducted, the matters were taken up to the Revenue Tribunal and there were remands. On 9-1-1980, the Mamlaldar made an order that the matter should be conducted under Sec. 32G of the Act. On 28-7-1980, the said order was set aside by the Deputy Collector and the matter was remanded back to the Mamlatdar. The matter ultimately went to the Tribunal, who, vide order dated 1-6-1988, directed that Mamlatdar should hold an inquiry under Sec. 70(b) of the Act. The Mamlaldar iniliated proceedings under the said Section and held that the respondent was entitled to an order in his favour. The order was set aside by the Deputy Collector in appeal, but the order passed by the Mamlatdar was restored by the Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 356 of 1993, therefore, the petitioner- landlord is before this Court.