SHANABHAI SHIVABHAI RATHOD Vs. SHANKERBHAI RAMABHAI RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Y.V. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 1. The respondents nos. 2 to 5 have been served, but none appears on their behalf. Therefore, it is not necessary to serve notice of rule upon the said respondents.

(2.) THE challenge in both these petitions is to the order dated 12th October, 2006, passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal [the "Tribunal" for short], whereby the Revision Applications of the petitioners in these two writ petitions, namely Revision Application No. 187 of 2004 and Revision Application No. 153 of 2004 have been dismissed, by a common order. Since the petitioners of both the petitions have a common interest and the same order is impugned in these petitions, which deal with similar factual and legal issues, both these petitions are being heard and decided together, in the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the petitions, as emerging from the averments made therein and the documents annexed thereto, are that the land bearing Survey No. 445/1, admeasuring 2 Acres and 3 Gunthas, situated in Village Anklav, Taluka Borsad, belonged to Jethabhai Narsinhbhai Vankar [petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 18073 of 2007]. The respondent no. 1 in each petition namely, Shri Shankerbhai Ramabhai Rathod, claimed to be a tenant upon the land in question who had been tilling the land and growing crops thereupon for the past 25 years. An application under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [the "Tenancy Act" for short], was submitted by the respondent no. 1, for being declared as a tenant upon the land in question. On issuance of notices, the original landlord resisted the claim of the respondent no. 1. The statements of the respondent no. 1 were recorded on 19th September, 1992 and 24th September, 1992. It appears from the record that the matter remained pending for a considerably long period of time, for one reason or another. It transpires from the record that ultimately, notices were issued by R.P.A.D, to the parties to remain present on 14th October, 1996. The landlord i.e., Jethabhai Narsinhbhai Vankar, was served by R.P.A.D., with acknowledgment, which finds place at page 151 of the record, as stated in the impugned order. The record discloses that on 14th October, 1996 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately, the matter came to be decided in favour of the tenant and, vide order dated 6th February, 1997, of the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Land Tribunal [ALT], the respondent no. 1 was declared to be a tenant of the land in question. No Appeal was preferred against this order by the landlord. However, the Deputy Collector, exercised his powers of suo motu, revision under Section 76A of the Tenancy Act in respect of the order dated 6th February, 1997 of the Mamlatdar and ALT, which came to be confirmed, by order dated 11th September, 2003. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT, the landlord [petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 18073 of 2007] sold the land to Shivabhai Babarbhai Rathod [petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14540 of 2007] by registered sale deed dated 2nd February, 1994.