GORDHANBHAI CHHABABHAI PATEL Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA KANUBHAI CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenge the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 29-8-1985 in allowing the Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 1205 of 1984 by holding that the Deputy Collector has no jurisdiction to summarily evict the respondents under Sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and thereby setting aside the order dated 10-9-1984 passed by the Deputy Collector in Tenancy Case No. Kundasan of 1984.

(2.) The petitioners, by an Agreement of Sale dated 29-6-1970, sold the land bearing Survey No. 200 (Block No. 279) admeasuring 6 Acres 21 Gunthas of village Kundasan, Taluka Gandhinagar to the respondents for Rs. 1,26,051.00. As per the agreement of sale, Rs. 10,000.00 were paid by the respondents and the parties had agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid within 10 days of the date of execution of the agreement of sale. The parties also had agreed to execute the registered sale deed thereafter. The respondents paid the remaining amount of purchase price to the petitioners in two instalments, i.e., one of Rs. 54,000.00 on 13-9-1979 and another of Rs. 62,000.00 on 29-9-1979. The respondents paid the total amount of Rs. 1,26,000.00 within three months and the said amount was received by the petitioners and the petitioner No. 1, in token of receipt of the amount, signed the agreement to sale and the remaining amount of Rs. 51.00 was to be adjusted towards the expenses to be incurred for registration of the sale deed. The respondents asked the petitioners to execute the sale deed. However, it appears that one-half undivided share of the land of Survey No. 200 along with well, electric pump etc. on the land for Rs. 4,500.00 regarding the share of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 had been sold and the sale deed was duly registered on 26-10-1979. The respondents paid the amount of purchase price upon which the possession of the entire land was given to the respondents and the petitioners told the respondents that the remaining one-half of the land may be sold and document may be executed afterwards. It appears that the respondents waited for a long time and requested the petitioners to execute the document of sale in respect of remaining one-half of the land in dispute. However, it is the case of the respondents that for one or the other reason, the petitioners delayed the execution of the sale deed, and in spite of the fact that the respondents, with the intervention of one Babubhai paid Rs. 23,000.00 on 29-12-1981 for the expenses of registration of sale deed, the petitioners did not execute the sale deed for the remaining one-half of the land of Survey No. 200. The respondents, after serving a notice dated 28-3-1982 asking the petitioners to execute the sale document for remaining one-half of the land of Survey No. 200, filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narol, for specific performance on the strength of banakhat executed by the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners filed an application before the Collector, Gandhinagar on 12-7-1982 alleging inter alia that the respondents are not holding any agricultural land within 8 kms. from the disputed land and they are not residing within 15 kms. and, therefore, they are not the agriculturists and, therefore, the transaction which was entered into between the parties is invalid and it contravenes the provisions of Sec. 63 of the Act. The petitioners also contended that the respondents are in unauthorised possession of the land and they should be summarily evicted from the disputed land under Sec. 84 of the Act.