MAFATLAL KHODIDAS Vs. GIRDHARLAL DHURABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner tenant has in these two petitions challenged the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal disposing of his revision applications in the two proceedings under secs. 32P and 32G respectively by the common order dated December 9 1963 As both the petitions involve common. questions of law and facts they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The Lands Tribunal instituted an inquiry under sec. 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as `the Act and in pursuance of the notice issued the petitioner appeared on July 14 1959 The matter was adjourned to August 3 1959 when it was further adjourned to October 6 1959 On that day the parties were absent and the Lands Tribunal recorded the statement of the person and kept the matter for orders. On October 15 1959 the Lands Tribunal made a declaration under sec. 32G (3) that the tenant was not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase was ineffective. It is the case of the petitioner that this order passed against him was not communicated while the case of the opponents 1 and 2 is that as per the outward register the order was intimated on November 7 1959. The Revenue Tribunal has not gone into this question as to the date of communication. The notice dated August 14 1962 was issued thereafter under sec. 32P to the petitioner and was served on him on August 30 1962 The petitioner having learnt that the Lands Tribunal had passed the order against him under sec. 32G he applied for review by the application dated May 10 1962 as no such order was communicated to him declaring the purchase in effective. This review application does not appear to have been entertained and no order has been passed thereon. The Mamlatdar acting as the delegate of the Collector from time to time adjourned the inquiry started by him under sec. 32P. It was on the last occasion on January 7 1963 that when the petitioner was absent the statement of the landlord was recorded and the Mamlatdar passed the order dated January 8 1963 for delivery of possession to the landlord as they required the same for bonafide personal cultivation. The petitioner tenant filed an appeal on February 4 1963 which was dismissed by the Prant Officer on June 10 1963 on the ground that it was time barred and the delay could not be condoned Besides this appeal against the order under sec. 32G dated October 15 1959 the tenant filed another appeal against the order under sec. 32P to the Collector which was found not maintainable as the Prant Officer had acted as the delegate of the Collector. Thereafter the revision applications were entertained by the Tribunal on July 9 1963 The Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the revision application against the order under sec. 32G on the ground that the Prant Officer rightly held that the appeal of the petitioner tenant was time barred. In the other revision application against the order under sec. 32P the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Prant Officer so far as the land was ordered to be surrender to the landlord. The order of delivery of possession was however quashed and the matter was remanded on the ground that as the mandatory requirement of sec. 32P (3). was not complied with for determining the amount refundable to the tenant after giving him an opportunity to be heard. It is this order dated December 9 1963 by the Tribunal that is challenged in these two petitions :-

(3.) Sec. 32G(1) of the Act provides that :-