RATILAL SHANKERBHAI Vs. PATEL ISHVARBHAI MOTIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made by the petitioners to the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 3-1-1985 passed in Revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 781/80 under which the revision filed by the respondent herein has been accepted and the application filed by the respondent under Sec. 32PPP of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948) was declared not maintainable.

(2.) The facts, in brief, of the case are that the respondent was cultivating land bearing survery No. 989 admeasuring 5 acres and 1 gunthas situated in the sim of village Bhadran. The petitioner No. 1 was at the relevant time, landlord of the suit land. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the purchasers of the said land under registered sale deed dated 18-10-1976, the Banakhat in respect thereof was executed on 5-9-1965. In an inquiry under Sec. 32G of the Act, 1948, the respondent declined to purchase the said land. Thereafter the land was placed at the disposal of the Collector and the Collector under its order dated 12-2-1969 terminated the tenancy of respondent and directed that the possession of the land be handed over to the petitioner No. 1. In pursuance of the said order of the Collector, a panchkyas was made in the presence of Talati and possession of the land in dispute was handed over on 21-4-1969 to the petitioner No. 1. Necessary mutation entry was also effected in the revenue record evidencing the possession having been handed over to the petitioner No. 1 The respondent filed an application purporting to be under Secs. 32PP and 32PPP of the Act, 1948. The Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Borsad, on appreciation of the evidence, produced by the parties on record, came to the conclusion that the application made by the respondent is not maintainable as the possession of the land in dispute was lawfully handed over to the petitioner No. 1. Against the aforesaid order of the Mamlatdar and the A.L.T., Borsad, the respondent filed an appeal (Tenancy appeal) before the Deputy Collector at Kheda. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate authority under its order dated 24-11-1979. The matter was taken up further by the respondent by filing a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad which came to be accepted under the order dated 3-1-1985. Hence, this Special Civil Application.

(3.) Challenging the correctness of the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, the counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact of the two authorities below that the possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner No. 1. Refering to Sec. 76 of the Act, 1948, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has a very limited power of interference in the matter while exercising its jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision. It has next been contended that otherwise also the order of Tribunal is not sustainable as it only considered the statement of one Daudbhai and other evidence that is of the Talati was not considered who very categorically stated that the possession of the land has been delivered to the petitioner No. 1. This is a serious procedural illegality committed by the Tribunal, and as such, the order deserves to be set aside.