NATHUBHAI AMAIDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges through this petition the re-grant of land in question in favour of respondent No. 4 by the Order of State Government dated 3-7-1997 in pursuance of which the Collector, Bharuch, had made the order dated 27/28-11-1997. The case of the petitioner is that their predecessor deceased Nathubhai Amaidas was tenant of Survey No. 290/1 admeasuring 1 acre 16 gunthas at village Gadkhol, Taluka Ankleshwar. As on 1-4-1957 the tiller's day he was in occupation of the land and cultivating the same as protected tenant. He is deemed to have purchased the land under the Bombay Tenancy Act. Proceedings under Sec. 32G of the Act was initiated. While these proceedings were pending, the land in question was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act vide Notification under Sec. 4 dated 1-4-1972 and Declaration under Sec. 6 dated 22-8-1972. The possession of the same was also taken in pursuance of such acquisition and the land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioner who was a tenant and predecessor of the respondent No. 4 the landlord, both have been awarded compensation with respect to their interest in the land in question. Thus, the acquisition proceedings were completed long before the present controversy arose. On acquisition of the land being complete and it having vested in the State Government, the proceeding under Sec. 32G became infructuous and same were dropped. The petitioner also states that he has applied for de-acquisition of his lands. However, the de-acquisition of the completed acquisition was not possible. As the land which was originally acquired for the public purpose was no more required for that purpose, vide impugned order dated 27/28- 11-1997 land has been allotted by way of re-grant to the original land holder, i.e., respondent No. 4. The petitioner feels aggrieved by grant of land in favour of respondent No. 4.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that under the Scheme of Bombay Tenancy Act, said Nathubhai being a tenant. On 1/04/1957, the tiller's day, became deemed purchaser of the land free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon the said day as per Sec. 32 of the Act. As a result of the said provision, right, title and interest of original land owner, if any, in the land, were extinguished and he became entitled only to the purchase price determined under the provisions of the said Act. The proceedings under Sec. 32G of the Act calling upon deemed purchasers, landlords of the land and other persons interested in land for the purpose of enquiring the willingness of the deemed purchaser to purchase the land held by him as a tenant and determination of purchase price payable by him. If the tenant shows his willingness to purchase on prospective determination of purchase price, an inquiry into that question takes place. In case the tenant fails to appear on the date or that he is not willing to purchase the land, the purchase becomes ineffective. In that event, right, title and interest of the land owner does not survive. Under Sec. 32P of the Act as applicable in the State of Gujarat, where the deemed purchase by the tenant becomes ineffective, whether on account of tenant's unwillingness to purchase or on account of failure to make good the purchase price determined by the Collector, it comes available for disposal by the Collector to be disposed of amongst persons narrated in order of priority under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 32P of the Act. Original landlord does not find a place therein. On this anvil, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as on the tiller's day, right of landlord in the land is extinguished. The land either becomes the property of the tenant as a result of purchase becoming effective, or becomes available for disposal amongst persons other than land owner in order of priority under Sec. 32P (2) and the tenant becomes liable to be evicted. But in no case any interest of landlord in land survives. His right is confined to receive purchase price. This being the position, on failure of acquisition proceedings, which commenced after 1-4-1957, the land must revert back to the petitioner who was deemed purchaser on the tiller's day under Sec. 32 and not to the original landlord. For the proposition that the interest of the landlord extinguishes as on the tiller's day in case the land is in possession of a tenant, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Bhikaji v. Kashinath Janardhan, reported in AIR 1983 SC 643.

(3.) Learned Addl. Government Pleader as well as learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 justified the order of re-grant to the original landlord. The case on behalf of the Government is that if the Government did not require the land under Clause 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual, after recovering the market value of the land, the Government can re-grant the said land to the original owner or his heirs. Reliance was placed on Government Resolution No. 7940 of 1949 dated 22-11-1950 also for re-granting in favour of the original landlord in preference to the petitioner. It was also urged that after the acquisition of the land, it became Government land and the tenant has no right, whatsoever, on that particular land. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 also urged that on acquisition of land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and there being no de-acquisition of the property, alluding to rights as existed prior to its acquisition are wholly irrelevant. The land in question continues to be a Government land and the Government has necessary authority for disposing of the land in question. The land has been disposed of in accordance with clause 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual. The petitioner has no right to challenge the grant made in favour of the respondent with reference to his claim to tenancy right as existed prior to the acquisition.