CHHAGANBHAI KHUSHALBHAI PATEL Vs. ZAVERBHAI HATHIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-landlords challenge the order passed by the Deputy Collector Nadiad dated 27/10/1978 which came to be confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 28/08/1979 The facts leading to this petition are as under.

(2.) The petitioners jointly owned S. Nos. 370 and 371 admeasuring 1 acre 37 gunthas and 3 acres 14 gunthas respectively situate in village Gutal of Koira District. The respondent-tenant filed an application before the Mamlatdar-cum-Agricultural Lands Tribunal (hereinafter called `the Mamlatdar praying for fixation of the purchase price on the ground that he was the tenant in respect of the lands in question The said proceeding Tenancy Case No. 10 of 1966 came to be disposed of against the tenant by the Mamlatdar. The said tenant preferred an appeal to the Collector and during the pendency of the said appeal he sought leave to introduce additional evidence. It appears that the effort to lend additional evidence proved unsuccessful and the Collector dismissed the appeal. The tenant therefore approached the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision but in vain. He therefore filed a writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution in this Court. The said Special Civil Application No. 919 of 1969 was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector for rehearing after taking decision on the question whether the additional documents sought to be produced should be allowed to be produced. After the matter went back to the Deputy Collector the Deputy Collector directed additional evidence to be led and on the basis of the totality of evidence on record he set aside the order of the Mamlatdar dated 18/08/1966 and held that the respondent was a tenant and was deemed to have purchased the some under Sec. 32FF of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) and directed the Mamlatdar to fix the price for the said lands. Against this order passed by the Deputy Collector Nadiad on 27/10/1978 the petitioners filed a revision application. The said revision application was rejected on 22/08/1978 thereby confirming the order of the Deputy Collector. It is against these orders of the Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal that the present petition is filed

(3.) In revision the Revenue Tribunal took the view that the surrender order cannot be valid unless it is accompanied by an order for delivery of possession under Sec. 29(2) of the Act. It found that the surrender order of 30/12/1956 did not contain any direction or order for delivery of possession of the lands to the landlords and therefore the same was not legal and valid. The Tribunal also found that the subsequent entries made in the revenue records after the alleged surrender were merely consequential to the surrender order without physical possession having been delivered to the landlords. The Tribunal thus came to the conclusion that the tenant continued to remain in possession of the lands in question even after the surrender order and therefore the order passed by the Deputy Collector Nadiad was in conformity with law.