KANJIBHAI BHAVANBHAI DESAI Vs. RAMESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant original petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 14. 9. 2007 of the learned Single Judge interpreting the provisions of Sections 16 to 18 and 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE petitioner, claiming to be an agricultural labourer and claiming to be having his residential premises on the land bearing Survey No. 28 of village Thaltej in Ahmedabad urban agglomeration (now a part of the local limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation), claiming to be in possession of 1000 sq. mtrs. of land appurtenant to his residential premises, approached the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal for declaration that he had become deemed purchaser of the land below the residential house and the land admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. appurtenant to his house in terms of Sections 16 to 18 of the Act. After some litigation, the Mamlatdar and ALT, by order dated 14. 10. 1999 declared that the petitioner is entitled to receive benefits under Section 16, 17 and 18 of the Act, that is to say, the Mamlatdar declared that the petitioner is entitled to purchase the land occupied by his residential house and the land appurtenant thereto admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. upon payment of Rs. 25/- within a period of one year from the date of the order. It was, however, specifically provided in the order that the land so held by the petitioner will be of restricted tenure under Section 43 of the Act.

(3.) WHILE the litigation between the original land owners and the present petitioner about the petitioner's entitlement to the above benefits under Section 16 to 18 is pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the petitioner challenged that portion of the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT by which it was declared that the land held by the petitioner would be of new tenure land and would carry all the restrictions provided under Section 43 of the Act. With the clarification that the discussion on the above controversy and the order in the petition would only be confined to the said condition and will not affect the litigation pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition. Hence, this appeal.